Just days after the government suffered a historic defeat on its Brexit deal – the largest defeat of any government in modern history, let us not hesitate to repeat – Theresa May is expected to return to parliament with the same plan. In a conference call last night, the Prime Minister reportedly told her cabinet that she doesn’t intent to change course. Instead, she will aim to win enough Tory and DUP support to get her deal through by seeking assurances on the backstop. Sound familiar? Possibly because that’s exactly what she vowed to do over Christmas.

How will she do it? The EU hasn’t, as hoped, changed its mind on the backstop after watching MPs reject the deal – after all, Ireland is still a member, and the backstop was actually May’s demand in the first place, and it only survives as an idea due to her red lines. There are rumours that she’d like to amend the Good Friday Agreement, which is clearly not viable. Another scheme involves a bilateral treaty with Ireland, which the Irish government has already quashed.

Was Jeremy Corbyn right to turn down May’s invite to Brexit talks last week? According to our latest survey, which attracted 5,625 responses, 60% of LabourList readers think he made the right call. It’s clear that the cross-party discussions were indeed a “stunt” and the PM had no intention of changing course until having at least one more go at convincing her party and confidence-and-supply partner. She knows that opting for customs union membership would split the Conservative Party, and why risk being that Tory leader? But, in her statement to the Commons today, May will no doubt place the blame on Corbyn for the failure of cross-party talks. Labour can only hope the public realise she is prioritising party unity above the national interest.

Over the weekend, Labour’s Brexit position developed when Keir Starmer gave a speech at the Fabians conference (read the full text here – note that LL gets a mention – and our key takeaways here). The headlines are that Labour is at the ‘third phase’ of its policy set out at conference, i.e. the alternative Brexit plan or backing a public vote. Again, the leadership won’t be moving swiftly onto the latter now that May has rejected compromise, but will instead wait to see how long her stubborn approach holds.

What’s clear is that Labour considers Article 50 extension “inevitable”, to quote Starmer, and this is important in deciding whether to support Yvette Cooper’s latest amendment. Although the opposition wants to make clear that responsibility for delaying Brexit lies with the government, Labour also wants to block ‘no deal’. Cooper’s move would give MPs a vote on whether to extend Article 50 if no agreement has been reached by the end of February, i.e. stop May running the clock down any further.

In what could become crucial in any future cross-party agreement, Starmer conceded on Marr the next day that “at this stage, any deal probably does require a backstop”. But if May does succeed in getting her ‘Plan B’ through with Tory and DUP votes, it is the Shadow Brexit Secretary’s other admissions that matter. “It’s a commitment to you, our members and our movement. And it is one we will keep,” he said of the key pledge about all options remaining on the table. The idea of another referendum, which has “significant support” among Labour members and some MPs, “has to be an option for Labour”, he added.

While answering audience questions, Starmer described himself as “a fan” of the Brexit citizens’ assembly idea, saying: “We’ve got to bring people back into these discussions, whether it’s through citizens’ assemblies or other means”. These are all largely shifts in tone rather than substance, but many MPs like to point out that Starmer has succeeded in softening the Labour position at every crunch moment. Could his backing for a further “injection of democracy” in the Brexit process break the camel’s back, or ultimately – like the backstop and extending Article 50 – become inevitable?

Over 60% of ourreaders believe that Jeremy Corbyn was right to refuse “substantive” Brexit talks with Theresa May last week, the latest LabourList survey has found.

After the government suffered a historic defeat on its Brexit deal, then survived a no-confidence vote called by the Labour leader, the Prime Minister invited opposition party leaders to engage in talks.

The results of the weekly LabourList survey, which attracted 5,625 responses, showed 60.3% of readers agreed with the Labour leader’s recent decision on the cross-party talks, while almost 34% said they disagreed with his position.

The poll also found that around 52% of readers believe the Labour Party’s priority should be to stop Brexit. 2,438 respondents, just over 44%, said alternatively that Labour should prioritise securing the best deal.

Below is a detailed breakdown of the questions and readers’ responses.

Was Jeremy Corbyn right to refuse “substantive” talks with Theresa May until she rules out ‘no-deal’ Brexit?

The aggregated results show that Keir Starmer, John McDonnell and Emily Thornberry were the most popular Labour frontbenchers among LabourList readers last week, with 4,055, 3,268 and 3,135 votes respectively.

A small number of readers got in touch to say that they did not notice the scroll bar when answering the third survey question. We will therefore aim to run the most popular shadow cabinet members question again this week in a different, clearer format.

The survey was open from 4.30pm on Thursday 17th January until 8pm on Sunday 20th January. Thank you to all 5,625 readers who took part.

KeirStarmer expressed many of the same views set out in his Fabians conference speech on Saturday, including that delaying Brexit by extending Article 50 is now inevitable and that Labour’s policy is in its ‘third phase’. He also conceded that any Brexit deal at this stage would “probably” require a backstop.

On Theresa May’s deal: “I have said for two years we will faithfully look at any deal that is brought back, which is what we did on Tuesday.”

On compromise and cross-party talks: “If she… said, my red lines have gone, I’m not going to hold a gun to your heads about no deal, that would shift the position incredibly.”

On the backstop: “At this stage any deal probably does require a backstop, and we’ve got to recognise that… There are problems with this backstop and we have got to recognise that. But because we are in this stage of the exercise, nearly two years in, the chances now of a deal that doesn’t have a backstop are very, very slim.”

On extending Article 50: “It’s extremely difficult to see how the Prime Minister can achieve what needs to be achieved in 68 days and therefore I think it is inevitable Article 50 is going to be extended. And the blame with that lies with the Prime Minister.”

On reports that in his office on Monday “backbench plotters” will meet to give control of the Brexit process to the Commons: “MPs doing their job are not plotters, they are trying to sort out the mess the Prime Minister has created. We are facing a national crisis and there are many MPs in the House of Commons whose first priority is to ensure that we do not leave without a deal. And therefore finding ways when we come to table amendments this week and debate on the 29th January how we stop that.”

On accusations that Commons officials have acted with bias: “To attack House of Commons clerks and suggest they’re part of a conspiracy is a disgrace. Our clerks are resolutely impartial.”

On breaking the deadlock: “I think we have to compromise because parliament is deadlocked and the Prime Minister can’t get around that.”

On indicative votes: “I’m in favour of parliament voting on a series of options to see if there’s one that can command majority support.”

On securing a Brexit deal: “I would prefer a soft Brexit, somewhere like Norway, to Theresa May’s botched deal… I could only vote for it on the basis that there was a final say referendum.”

On Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit position: “He’s moving the goalposts and I’ve been very clear on that… It seems to me there is no point in continuing with votes of no confidence, throwing darts and missing the board… I think that Jeremy has been hedging.”

On a Labour split: “There is a small group in our party who are so frustrated, who have so much grievance, the fear is that they are going to go off and form another party. I personally reject that but the danger is, just like 1983, a new party built around basically a relationship with Europe keeps the Labour Party out of power for a generation.”

‘The British people have got to have a final say and resolve is. You cannot argue you undermine democracy with more democracy’ says David Lammy MP #Ridge

Andrew Gwynne, Labour MP for Denton and Reddish and Shadow Local Government Secretary:

On Labour talks with May: “In terms of opening the door to meaningful negotiations with us, all she’s got to do is give us a verbal commitment that she will do everything possible to prevent a no deal.”

Caroline Flint, Labour MP for Don Valley:

On the way forward for Brexit: “Get ‘no deal’ off the table, but get Remain off the table as well, so we can focus on what needs to be done. There’s too much shenanigans, too much process, not enough substance going on amongst politicians.”

Westminster Hour

Yvette Cooper, Labour MP for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, who has a new bill and an amendment (with Nick Boles) to take ‘no deal’ off the table:

On her bill to allow parliament to demand an extension of Article 50: “If we’re still in this paralysis by the end of February, we just have to be sensible and recognise that we may need more time… The plan is to put forward a simple amendment to the Prime Minister’s Plan B motion that there was parliamentary time for [the bill].”

On the length of Article 50 extension: “It proposes an extension until the end of the year, but that’s amendable.”

On support for her bill: “I’ve talked to the [Labour] frontbench… My understanding is that there are government ministers who also want this bill to pull through.”

Jenny Chapman, Labour MP for Darlington and shadow Brexit minister:

On Labour supporting Cooper’s bill: “That’s a decision for Nick Brown and the shadow cabinet… I think there will be widespread for this in parliament.”

Keir Starmer delivered a 2,000-word speech and answered the questions of Labour activists at the Fabian conference this morning. The frontbencher covered the failures of the Tory government during the Brexit negotiations and the next steps for Labour policy. Here’s what we learned…

Labour will keep trying to force a general election.

“Wednesday’s no confidence vote was just the beginning of Labour’s efforts to secure a general election – not the end,” Starmer said in his speech. “Securing a general election is – and always will be – our priority as it’s the only way to deliver the radical change this country needs.”

After the government survived the no-confidence vote on Wednesday, Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesperson did not rule out tabling another such motion at a later date, possibly before the Prime Minister has returned to parliament with a substantive ‘Plan B’ for Brexit.

“Motions of confidence can happen more than once,” the spokesperson said earlier this week. This was confirmed again as the Labour leader’s line in his Hastings speech: “We will come back with [a motion of no-confidence] again if necessary.”

Labour will keep its conference motion commitment.

At Labour conference in September, the Brexit composite motion unanimously passed by delegates pledged: “If we cannot get a general election, Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote.”

Following phase one (voting down Theresa May’s deal) and phase two (seeking an election), Starmer confirmed that we are now “at the third phase of our policy”. He went on to describe the key pledge about “all options remaining on the table” as “a very important commitment”.

“It’s a commitment to you, our members and our movement. And it is one we will keep,” Starmer promised in his speech today.

Starmer ruled out two options today. First, supporting the Prime Minister’s deal, “or any tweaked version of it that may materialise”. The Brexit spokesperson explained: “The deal is so flawed, it is so far from meeting our tests, and the parliamentary opposition to is so great that this can no longer be considered a credible option. A majority of 230 speaks for itself.”

It is of some interest that he said “this can no longer be considered a credible option” – as if it were a credible option at one point. There had been rumours towards the end of 2018 that Labour could countenance backing a version of May’s deal, particularly as many argue (and Barry Gardiner has acknowledged) that only the non-legally-binding political declaration part of the divorce deal would need changing.

Second, leaving without a deal. This one came as no surprise, as the entire parliamentary Labour Party agrees (apart from Kate Hoey). “No deal simply is not acceptable to us – it never has been. The damaging impact of no deal to people across the country is so profound that no one should be casual about it,” Starmer said.

Third, the Canada model favoured by some Brexiteers in the Conservative Party. “A free-trade deal along the lines of CETA – the so-called Canada model – is not acceptable,” Starmer said. “A CETA-style deal would weaken workers’ rights, consumer and environmental standards. It wouldn’t protect supply chains which are vital for our manufacturing industry. And it wouldn’t prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland.”

Finally, any Brexit deal that lead to a hard Irish border.

Two options remain: Labour’s alternative plan and a public vote.

Starmer clearly set out that after ruling out all of the above, there are only two options for Labour: “1) Instructing the Government to negotiate a close economic relationship with the EU” and “2) As our conference motion sets out, the option of a public vote”.

The Shadow Brexit Secretary conceded that Labour’s alternative plan is “far from perfect” and “involves trade-offs and compromises”. He also acknowledged that the other option, a fresh EU referendum, has “significant support” among Labour members and some Labour MPs. He emphasised that this “has to be an option for Labour”.

Responding to audience questions on a ‘people’s vote’, Starmer said: “We’re no longer in the position we were in two years ago. We’re asking a different question, which is how to crash out without a deal. In those circumstances, we have to consider the options laid out in my speech.”

Starmer thinks we probably won’t leave the EU on 29th March.

“We also need to recognise that – whichever of these options we pursue – the 29th March deadline looks increasingly unlikely to be met,” he said. Listing the pieces of legislation still needing MPs’ approval, Starmer concluded that Article 50 extension is “inevitable”.

Asked whether the EU elections taking place this year would affect that extension, Starmer replied: “It’s a pretty open secret that the EU have at least discussed extending until 1st July.” European Labour Party leader Richard Corbett has similarly advised in the past that extension until July would be feasible without the need to hold European parliamentary elections in the UK in May.

Starmer is interested in the idea of a Brexit citizens’ assembly.

Last month, Neil Lawson of Compass called for a Brexit citizens’ assembly, whereby a representative sample of the public would make a recommendation on the outcome. The idea has since been supported by MPs including Lisa Nandy and Stella Creasy. Starmer revealed today that he is “a fan”, saying: “We’ve got to bring people back into these discussions, whether it’s through citizens’ assemblies or other means”.

Keir Starmer reads LabourList.

We already knew that. But he has now also quoted a LabourList piece in a key Brexit speech. He said:

“But as Andrew Harrop pointed out in LabourList last weekend: “In this moment of national crisis, [Labour] has a responsibility not just to oppose but to offer a constructive path forward.” I agree. It’s now time for an open and frank debate about how we break the deadlock.”

We’ve got a new Brexit vote date: 29th January. But there’s no sign of a new Brexit plan from Theresa May, who engaged in cross-party talks yesterday that appeared to be purely performative. Jeremy Corbyn did his best to get some movement going. As discussed in yesterday’s email, the opposition leader has decided to snub substantive Brexit talks until ‘no deal’ is ruled out. In his Hastings speech, he told the Prime Minister to “ditch the red lines and get serious about proposals for the future”. He followed that up with a letter that clarified his position: “Labour is open to meaningful discussions. But… these cannot be on the basis of your existing red lines.” Her response said ruling out ‘no deal’ was an “impossible condition”.

Was Corbyn’s boycott decision the right one? (This question isn’t hypothetical – you can tell us your view in our new survey.) The Labour MPs I spoke to were divided on the issue: some thought it was too nuanced and came across badly to the public (“we’re in primary colours now”); some agreed that the talks were pointless without that no-no-deal assurance (including Corbynsceptics such as Wes Streeting); others undecided (“we’ll see if it pays off”). Quite a few were irritated by Corbyn’s message to Labour MPs in which he urged them to refrain from government talks for now. Most did follow his lead. A few ignored the advice – John Mann, Yvette Cooper, Hillary Benn, Stephen Kinnock and other non-loyalists took a trip to the Cabinet Office – but, like other opposition party leaders, they seemed to find the government unhelpful and uncompromising.

With neither May nor Corbyn yet changing their Brexit position, we’re still at square one: how do we break the deadlock? Another referendum seems logical in some ways – admit our political class has failed, throw it back to the people – but it does risk killing off any idea that our elected representatives are competent enough to run the country, as well as presenting a whole host of other problems. Crucially, neither main party leaders want to do it and there is currently no parliamentary majority for it.

The Guardian today leads with a story that Corbyn would face up to a dozen frontbench resignations if he backed a fresh public vote. Emily Thornberry and Diane Abbott might be alright with it, but it’s easy to imagine that Ian Lavery, Barry Gardiner and Jon Trickett, as well as a host of Leave-seat junior shadow ministers including Gloria de Piero, wouldn’t be without protest. Of course, Corbynsceptics (such as Luke Akehurst) are not best pleased about how the story was written up – they say there will also be resignations if he refuses to support the move.

Like everything else with Brexit, there are no easy answers. Tricky, tricky. I’m very interested to hear what you make of it all. Was Corbyn’s call on Brexit talks this week the right one? What should be Labour’s top priority now? And who are your favourite shadow cabinet members? Tell us by completing our new survey. Have a great weekend.

Jeremy Corbyn has today written to Theresa May calling on her to rule out ‘no-deal’ Brexit.

In the letter, the Labour leader says he is “open to meaningful discussions”, but makes clear that they cannot take place on the basis of May’s “existing red lines”.

Corbyn argues that “no tweaks or further assurances” will win May’s Brexit deal the approval of MPs.

“I am disappointed that there have already been several briefings in which you continue to rule out a customs union,” he writes.

“A new customs union is part of a solution favoured by most businesses and trade unions, and one that I believe could command a majority of the House of Commons.”

In his Hastings speech on Brexit today, the opposition leader confirmed that his priority – the “first option” on the table mentioned in the conference composite motion – is to support a deal that aligns with Labour’s alternative plan.

Below is the full text of Corbyn’s letter.

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to follow up on my statement in the Commons last night on a point of order.

I wish to reiterate the points I raised at Prime Minister’s Questions and to formally set out the position of the Labour Party.

We are firmly of the opinion that the starting point for any talks about how to break the Brexit deadlock must be that the threat of a disastrous ‘no deal’ outcome is ruled out.

That is the position that Labour set out in our 2017 manifesto, at our 2018 party conference – and that we have consistently adhered to throughout.

I note that it is a position shared by all the opposition parties, including the DUP, and is the expressed will of Parliament. If you are serious about reaching a deal, then ‘no deal’ must be ruled out.

After the unprecedented and unnecessary delay to the meaningful vote last month, entering into talks while the clock continues to run down, and the threat of a chaotic ‘no deal’ increases, would be a reckless leap in the dark.

The Chancellor and the Business Secretary were both open to ruling out ‘no deal’ in the recent conference call with business leaders.

Therefore, on behalf of the Labour Party, I ask you to rule out ‘no deal’ and to immediately end the waste of hundreds of millions of pounds of public money preparing for a ‘no deal’ outcome. The £4.2 billion currently allocated to ‘no deal’ planning could significantly improve many of cash-starved public services on which people rely and could transform the lives of those struggling on Universal Credit.

Labour is open to meaningful discussions. But following the decisive rejection of the government’s deal by MPs on Tuesday, those cannot be on the basis of your existing red lines. It is clear that no tweaks or further assurances are going to win support for the government’s Brexit deal in Parliament.

We have set out an alternative framework for a better deal: based upon a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union; a strong Single Market deal; and guarantees that there can be no race to the bottom on rights and standards. That is the consistent position that Labour has outlined over the past year.

I am disappointed that there have already been several briefings in which you continue to rule out a customs union. A new customs union is part of a solution favoured by most businesses and trade unions, and one that I believe could command a majority of the House of Commons.

Last night, the government survived Jeremy Corbyn’s no-confidence vote with a majority of 19. With every Conservative MP still holding out hope that their version of Brexit (or lack thereof) has a chance, and the DUP keen to highlight their usefulness in this exact situation, Theresa May didn’t suffer any rebellions. She was also helped by ex-Labour MPs John Woodcock, Ivan Lewis and Fiona Onasanya, who abstained. After the result was announced, the Prime Minister invited the opposition party leaders for Brexit talks – but Corbyn called on her first to rule out ‘no deal’. And this stand-off dominates the news today.

As soon as the PM decided she was safe enough from the threat of a no-confidence vote, after being stubborn and unresponsive at PMQs, then having Michael Gove make personal attacks against the Labour leader during the confidence debate, she apparently extended an olive branch (without a hint of irony). But in calling for cross-party cooperation over the last few weeks, Labour has been consistent in its approach: stop blackmailing us with your no-deal threat, and relax your red lines so that we have something to talk about. As Richard Burgon confirmed this morning, Tory chair Brandon Lewis has told Labour that the government refuses to remove any red lines or rule out ‘no deal’. We are at a standstill.

Corbyn’s team has presented a nuanced argument for its ‘rule out no deal’ demand and the narrative will likely get lost in translation to the wider public, aided by coverage such as the Daily Mail’s “Wrecker Corbyn” splash. And despite supposedly speaking outside No10 last night as the Prime Minister, not a party political figure, May said she was “disappointed” by Corbyn’s decision and even had the cheek to ask others to “put self-interest aside”. So Labour’s no-deal demand as a “starting point” for “substantive talks” will be made to look unreasonable to voters. Why do it?

Well, for one, ruling out ‘no deal’ could lose May her DUP backing and bring down the government. And though keenly aware of the fragility of the confidence-and-supply deal, May does have to act soon. Every option – extending Article 50, conceding on customs union membership, no-deal – risks resignations. She is faced with the same choice as ever: keep the gridlock, or drop hard Brexiteers and scrap some red lines to reach a compromise deal (at which point Labour could win a well-timed no-confidence vote).

More than ever, Labour wants to show that it is ready for an election. After releasing a new party political broadcast last night, Corbyn will be making a speech in the very marginal Tory seat of Hastings this morning. On Amber Rudd’s turf, he is expected to set out Labour’s next steps for Brexit and flesh out his response to May’s talks invitation. We’re unlikely to be surprised by the speech content – no such luck, People’s Vote campaigners – but interest lies in whether Corbyn can convince the country he isn’t contributing to the mess in Westminster.

84 Labour MPs and MEPs, including shadow housing minister Roberta Blackman-Woods, joined together today to declare their public support for a fresh referendum on the UK’s EU membership. Describing no-deal as a “catastrophe”, the elected figures signed a letter urging the government to seek Article 50 extension and Labour to give people a “final say”.

Although the list of signatories was assumed by many to be the definitive directory of (71) Labour MPs supportive of another public vote, LabourList has found that a total of 88 MPs so far have declared their endorsements. This amounts to around a third of the parliamentary party. The reasons for which 17 MPs who have publicly backed the idea did not sign the letter today are unclear.

It could be that some of the dozen MPs support a ‘people’s vote’, though not the letter. It explicitly contends, for instance, that “renegotiation is not a realistic prospect”, despite it being understood that this is Jeremy Corbyn’s preferred way forward. This statement – as well as increased coverage of their viewpoint, and the possibility of being associated with Corbynsceptics – could explain why just one of the eight frontbenchers who have openly campaigned for another public vote signed the letter.

The letter also states that the public would offer “the option to stay and keep the deal that we have”. But the signatories aren’t all agreed on this issue. Seema Malholtra, who recently announced her support for the People’s Vote campaign in a joint Sunday Times article with Sir Nicholas Soames, confirmed to LabourList that she would like to see an “EEA/CU-based deal” approved by parliament before putting it to the country, along with ‘Remain’.

Her route would require breaking the parliamentary deadlock on Brexit, which goes against the arguments of some who suppose that a ‘people’s vote’ is a solution to the standstill in itself. And if MPs could come together behind a Brexit deal based on European Economic Area or customs union membership, many could be tempted to leave it at that – for now, at least.

Malholtra’s proposal gives rise to one of the questions to which the People’s Campaign hasn’t given a single answer: what would the ballot paper would look like? It has been widely assumed by campaigners that May’s deal would be included as an option for voters to choose in addition to ‘Remain’, as outlined in the letter. However, the crushing defeat of that deal in the Commons this week casts doubt over such a path.

Ultimately, the campaign launch this morning shows that Labour can only make a difference in the People’s Campaign if Corbyn lends his support. This is not only due to the leader’s own reservations, and the private polling done by his office that shows it would be electorally damaging. It is also because there is a significant level of opposition amongst shadow cabinet members and would lead to the resignations of key allies.

Below is the full statement and list of signatories published today.

This is an unprecedented and perilous moment in our history. With this Tory government in chaos and with the jobs and security of our constituents on the line – we strongly support the Labour decision to reject Theresa May’s “deal”.

We were appalled at her anti-democratic moves to prevent parliament having a vote, and to run down the clock by delaying it until mid-January. This was an utterly irresponsible decision, and gambling with the jobs and livelihoods of our constituents.

The Tory government approach has been disastrous since day one. Their plans would lead to more austerity, fewer jobs and less money for our public services. This is not what anyone voted for in 2016.

We represent hugely diverse constituencies from the North to the South, from Wales to Scotland. Many of our constituencies voted to Leave in 2016. We must listen to and respond to the reasons why people did so. But we now face a moment of national crisis, where the facts and the views of many people have changed – and are continuing to change.

It is now clear renegotiation is not a realistic prospect. No deal would be a catastrophe which we must resolutely oppose. The government should seek an extension to Article 50 to provide time for Parliament to find a way forward. Theresa May has failed to bring this country back together. Labour’s conference adopted a clear policy for this situation.

We must try and remove this government from office as soon as possible. But the removal of the government and pushing for a general election may prove impossible, so we must join trade unions, our members and a majority of our constituents by then unequivocally backing the only logical option to help our country move forward: putting the decision back to the people for a final say, in a public vote, with the option to stay and keep the deal that we have.

Defeat of the Tory deal in a public vote would give us all a chance to campaign for the anti-austerity policies and a Labour government that deals with the true causes of the Brexit vote, and a reformed Europe that works for all people.

Theresa May suffered the worst defeat of any government in history last night. That’s no exaggeration. A majority of 230 MPs voted against her Brexit deal – bigger than anyone was expecting – with 248 Labour MPs, 118 Tories and all other parties opposed. Only three Labour MPs rebelled to vote for May’s deal – Ian Austin, Kevin Barron, John Mann – plus Frank Field, now sitting as an Independent, whereas 63% of Tory backbenchers voted against the government. After the meaningful vote, Jeremy Corbyn told MPs he had tabled a motion of no confidence in the government, which will be debated today and voted on at 7pm.

What has actually changed? Although the Prime Minister indicated that she would reach across the Commons to hold cross-party talks with a “constructive spirit” when speaking at the despatch box, the reality is far less encouraging. Her spokesman made clear last night that she would not seek talks with Corbyn, but “senior parliamentarians” only, and this was confirmed by Andrea Leadsom on Today this morning. This stance could dissipate after the confidence vote tonight, though it does align with May’s extraordinarily stubborn approach and her persistence in prioritising the Conservative Party over the country.

As expected then, May’s ‘Plan B’ will very closely resemble ‘Plan A’ – despite a staggering number of parliamentarians having just rejected that very deal. When it comes to the government, ‘nothing has changed’. And for Labour? The steps set out in its conference policy will be followed, though not in the way many party activists hope. John McDonnell says there’s a “febrile atmosphere” in Westminster and “anything could happen”, but the DUP and Tories will support the government today – which is laughable, of course. So once it is clear an election cannot be forced, will Corbyn back the People’s Vote campaign? Don’t bet on it.

“Motions of confidence can happen more than once,” the leader’s spokesman said last night. Plus, a fresh referendum isn’t the only option on that notorious table. Asked what the other options were, the spokesman replied: “The first is the alternative plan that we have laid out and that we believe can command a majority across the Commons, even without a general election… All options on the table means there is no hierarchy but this is our policy.” See what I mean? There are situations in which Labour could win a confidence vote: if a deal including the backstop passes, or if MPs find themselves staring off the no-deal cliff edge. The leadership doesn’t want to jump the gun.

The questions to ask now: How many MPs will go back on their votes and ultimately support May’s deal? If her Plan B fails, will May compromise on customs union membership? Or can she hold out for longer, and continue to threaten MPs with no deal/no Brexit? Will the Commons extend Article 50, and does this eventually mean another public vote? The answers are unknowable at this stage, but the next few sitting days in parliament promise to be exciting and decisive.

January 16, 2019

Reactions to Parliament’s meaningful vote on the Brexit deal.

Venki Ramakrishnan, President of the Royal Society, says:

“Yesterday’s unprecedented vote makes the prospect of leaving the EU without a deal even more likely. A no deal Brexit would be a disaster for British science and innovation and I urge our elected representatives to put the interests of the country first and get a new plan to prevent this catastrophic outcome.”

Professor Sir Robert Lechler PMedSci, President of the Academy of Medical Sciences said:

“In light of today’s vote to reject the Prime Minister’s deal, I am at pains to once again stress that leaving the EU without a deal is a grave threat to biomedical research and the patients and public who rely on our currently collaborative and world-class science.

“This isn’t speculation, no deal would lead to serious negative impacts for medical research, including the disruption to productive collaborations, lost access to funding, barriers to clinical trials and research into rare diseases, and a diminution in our ability to attract and retain researchers to the UK.

“It is somewhat encouraging to see that over the last week MPs have shown that Parliament will not support a “no deal” Brexit. But, time is running out and I urge Parliamentarians to have the need for a good outcome for science and medical research at the forefront of their minds in the coming days and weeks.”

Paul Nurse, Director of the Francis Crick Institute, says:

“Following the vote, it’s critical that government does everything in its power to avoid a no-deal Brexit. Our scientists unanimously agree that no-deal would be a disaster.”

“International collaboration is crucial to modern science, and the UK has particularly close research links with the EU. For British science to hold onto its world-leading position after Brexit, scientists must be able to move easily across Europe, participate fully in EU programmes and work seamlessly with partners across the channel. The best way to do this would be to remain in the EU but, if we must leave, we urgently need a deal to provide certainty in these areas.

“The Crick is prepared for the short-term impacts of no-deal. We are covering the costs of the EU settlement scheme for our European staff and their families, who make up 40% of our scientific workforce, and we have measures in place to ensure that our science can continue uninterrupted if our supply chain is disrupted.

“However, the long-term impact of no-deal on science and society would set back scientific progress significantly. We need a deal that not only allows the best scientists to come and work here but also encourages them to stay and makes them feel welcome. While the Crick is still attracting world class scientists in spite of Brexit, we are beginning to see European scientists planning to return to their home countries after they finish their PhDs or postdocs at the Crick.”

*Case studies of researchers planning to leave the UK for their next position are available

Declared interests

The nature of this story means everyone quoted above could be perceived to have a stake in it. So we did not ask for interests to be declared, as they are implicit in the affiliations.

“Delighted Mrs May’s treacherous deal got its just deserts in the House of Commons. It deserved no better. The PM needs to now present EU the unequivocal choice of ditch the Backstop or face No Deal. No more rollover; time to make Brussels face reality.”

Jeremy Corbyn tabled a motion of no confidence in the government after Theresa May’s deal was defeated by a huge 230 vote majority tonight.

Labour’s confidence motion will be debated and voted on tomorrow, but the government will likely survive as Tory and DUP MPs have pledged to support it despite having decisively voted down its Brexit deal.

Both Jim Fitzpatrick, who said he was minded to vote for May’s deal last week, and Caroline Flint, who hadn’t confirmed either way, helped to defeat the deal. Lisa Nandy, Gareth Snell, Kate Hoey and other possible Labour rebels had already promised to follow the Labour whip tonight.

Speaking in the Commons after the vote, Jeremy Corbyn described the defeat as “catastrophic”. He said: “After two years of failed negotiations, the House of Commons has delivered its verdict on her Brexit deal and that verdict is absolutely decisive.”

The Labour leader added: “In the last two years, she has only had one priority: the Conservative Party. Her governing principle of delay and denial has reached the end of the line. She cannot seriously believe that after two years of failure, she is capable of negotiating a good deal for the people of this country.”

Although Corbyn has already called on the Prime Minister to renegotiate her deal and expressed his preference for one that includes customs union membership, May’s spokesperson did not indicate that such compromises would be made.

Downing Street said the Prime Minister would consult “senior parliamentarians”, not the opposition leader, on a deal based on the same principles of taking control of “money, borders, laws” with “an independent trade policy”.

Following the likely outcome of the confidence vote tomorrow, Corbyn will face pressure from Labour MPs and activists to back a fresh EU referendum. However, his spokesperson made clear that there are “other options on the table”.

Asked what were the other options, the spokesperson replied: ‪“The first is the alternative plan that we have laid out and that we believe can command a majority across the commons, even without a general election.”‬

He added: ‪“All options on the table means there is no hierarchy of options but this is our policy.”‬ On the possibility of tabling multiple motions of no confidence in the government, the spokesperson said: “‪Motions of no confidence can happen more than once.”‬

Tuesday 15 September 2019Clare Bailey MLA, leader of the Green Party has said that the government defeat on the EU Brexit deal means a People’s Vote is a must.Clare Bailey MLA said: “Westminster and Theresa May’s government are in chaos, a People’s Vote is a must.“The option to remain must be on the table as part of a People’s Vote.“The conditions under which the UK will leave the European Union have been set out and the final say must sit with the people.“We know that the Leave campaign broke electoral law, we know that reaping an additional £350m for the NHS was a fiction and we know that the deal on the table is opposed by MPs.“The majority of people across Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU and the polls tell us that most people would swing to remain if a vote happened tomorrow.”Clare Bailey MLA concluded:“The Tories and Labour Party are hopelessly divided and there is no consensus on a way forward – a People’s Vote can push through the parliamentary impasse.”ENDSMedia contactSinead McIvor – 07701 302 498

The House of Commons will finally vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal tonight in what is known as the ‘meaningful vote’, which was originally set to take place in December before the Prime Minister delayed it at short notice.

The government is widely expected to be heavily defeated on that final vote, but estimates range from as low as 50 to over 200. If the loss exceeds 89 votes, it will be the largest post-war defeat since 1979; if it exceeds 166 votes, it will be the largest “genuine” government defeat since 1918.

Despite being about to suffer a huge and historic defeat, it is anticipated that May will bring her deal back to the Commons “in much the same form with much the same content”, to use Geoffrey Cox’s words.

It is thought highly unlikely that the Prime Minister will step down, however damning the defeat, therefore Jeremy Corbyn may decide to table a motion of no confidence in the government after the meaningful vote. Labour has not confirmed its timing yet.

The big day has arrived: MPs will finally vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal after 7pm tonight, and they are sure to defeat it. Heavily, in all likelihood. Every opposition party is set to whip against, and only a handful of Labour MPs are expected to rebel: John Mann, Jim Fitzpatrick, Sir Kevin Barron, plus now-Independent Frank Field, while Caroline Flint has yet to confirm either way. There could be a couple more surprise names, but Kate Hoey, Gareth Snell and Lisa Nandy are definitely voting against, and left-wing Brexiteers won’t defy Jeremy Corbyn.

If we know May’s deal will be voted down, why not switch off from Brexit news for the rest of the day? Because we are going to learn two things that will determine our fate: numbers and amendments. The Prime Minister won’t resign however huge the scale of her defeat, but the number of MPs against her deal – and where they come from – will shape what changes to make for her return to parliament with ‘Plan B’.

Amendments play this role too. Hilary Benn has now pulled his own, which would have rejected this deal and attempted to rule out no-deal, because government whips caught on to the idea that it could have saved May from total humiliation. The backbencher’s decision will help maximise opposition to the deal. But other Tory amendments aim to soften backstop objections: Murrison, or ‘Q’, adds a December 2021 expiry date; Swire, or ‘O’, adds a parliamentary veto. We don’t yet know which will be selected by the Speaker, or in what order, but support for these could be important. Though not able to save the deal today, May is likely to show the amendment voting figures – if favourable – to Brussels and say, ‘look, give us a substantial backstop change and we can pass this thing’.

You should also follow our liveblog from the Commons tonight because high-level drama is guaranteed. May will respond to the result at the despatch box, and Corbyn is now expected to table a vote of no confidence in the government immediately afterwards. We know the PM probably plans to bring back her deal with a few (cosmetic) changes; we can assume the Labour leader will lose the confidence vote on Wednesday and won’t be announcing his support for a fresh referendum as a result. But the exchanges in the Commons – between the Speaker and Tory MPs, if nothing else – promise to be full of wit, passion and fury.

The Labour leader said the joint letter to May from the EU’s Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, which aimed to offer assurances on the controversial Irish backstop, “means nothing”.

In his response to the latest Brexit statement from the Prime Minister, Corbyn argued that May had “completely and utterly failed” to gain assurances from the EU that were legally binding, as she had pledged to do when delaying the meaningful vote in December.

He concluded that MPs would “not be fooled” by the European council and commission presidents’ letter, and said he hoped the deal would be voted down tomorrow.

Corbyn again made the case for a Brexit deal including customs union membership, a strong single market relationship and guarantees on EU rights and standards, and for holding a general election.

Below is the full text of Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the Prime Minister’s statement on the Brexit deal in the House today.

Mr Speaker, I would link to thank the Prime Minister for advance copy of her statement. In December, the government shamefully pulled the meaningful vote on her deal with the promise that the Prime Minister would secure legal assurances from the EU that the backstop would be temporary. The Leader of the House confirmed this saying: “The Prime Minister is determined to get the legal reassurances that Members want to see”. While the Foreign Secretary told us the Prime Minister would ‘find a way’ to win tomorrow’s Commons vote by getting assurances with ‘legal force’ that the Irish border backstop is only temporary.

On receiving this letter today to the Prime Minister from the President of the EU Commission and Council, it must now be clear to all Members across this House yet again the Prime Minister has completely and utterly failed! Today’s letter is nothing more than a repetition of exactly the same position that was pulled more than a month ago. It categorically does not give the legal assurances this House was promised and contains nothing but warm words and aspirations.

Mr Speaker, isn’t it the case that absolutely nothing has changed from the Attorney General’s letter of advice to the Cabinet? His advice which the government tried to hide explained with great clarity the reasons why the UK could find itself locked in to the Northern Ireland “backstop” Protocol with no legal escape route.

Today’s letter means nothing. The truth remains that by the end of 2020 the UK will face a choice of either extending the transition period, which comes at a unknown financial cost or we will fall into the backstop which the Attorney General has said, “endures indefinitely” until such time as an agreement supersedes it.

He has himself updated his legal advice today and he clearly says, and I quote, “they do not alter the fundamental meanings”, as he advised them in November. If there were legally binding assurances on the temporary nature of the backstop, then surely they would be written into the withdrawal agreement itself?

The letter published this morning is clear this is not possible, saying: “We are not in a position to agree to anything that changes or is inconsistent with the Withdrawal Agreement”. Mr Speaker, this morning’s joint letter does say “negotiations can start as soon as possible after the withdrawal of the UK”. But my question to the Prime Minister is how is that possible when the Cabinet cannot agree among themselves?

That is why the Political Declaration is so vague. Actually, Mr Speaker, I believe the right word is “nebulous”. Given the Prime Minister has failed to secure the promised changes, there can be no question of once again ducking accountability and avoiding tomorrow’s vote. No more playing for time; no more running down the clock to scare people into backing this damaging shambles of a deal.

I am sure Honourable members across the House will not be fooled by what has been produced today. It is clear what we are voting on this week is exactly the same deal we should have voted on in December. I am sure the Prime Minister knows this – that is why today she is trying to blame others for this chaos.

Given the lack of support for the Prime Minister’s deal, you might have thought she would try to reach out to MPs. Instead the Prime Minister is claiming that by failing to support her botched deal, Honourable members are threatening to undermine the faith of the British people in our democracy.

Mr Speaker, the only people who are undermining faith in our democracy is the government itself! Mr Speaker, I can think of no greater example of democracy in action than for this House to reject a deal that is clearly a bad for Britain. During the past two years of these shambolic negotiations, the Prime Minister has failed to listen. She hasn’t once tried to work with Parliament to construct a Brexit deal this House and the country can support. And now she is left facing a humiliating defeat. She is blaming everybody else but herself.

Mr Speaker, if this deal is rejected tomorrow, and I hope it is, the blame will lie firmly with this government and firmly at the feet of the Prime Minister. There is a deal that could command the support of this House: a deal which includes a new and comprehensive customs union; a strong single market relationship; and a guarantee to keep pace with EU rights and standards. Instead the Prime Minister still chooses to take the most reckless path.

Mr Speaker, as we enter the week of the ‘meaningful vote’, let us remember the incompetence we have been forced to endure. We have seen two years of shambolic negotiations. Red lines announced and then cast aside. We are now on the third Brexit Secretary, all of whom have been largely excluded from vital stages of the negotiations. We were promised the easiest trade deal in history, yet have seen a divided government deliver a botched withdrawal deal with nothing more than a vague outline for what our future relationship with the EU will be.

Meanwhile, conditions in this country for millions of people continue to get worse. The government is in disarray. It is clear if the Prime Minister’s deal is rejected tomorrow – it is time for a general election – it is time for a new government.

“The EU’s letter only underscores the Prime Minister’s impotence. She promised legally binding change. She got nothing. Warm words don’t cut it or alter one iota the harsh text of the Withdrawal Agreement and its pernicious Backstop.

“Indeed, it is clear from this letter that far from ameliorating the Backstop into the future, the EU is determined to replicate its same destructive principles in any ultimate settlement. The fourth substantive paragraph of the letter makes that plain.

“As I’ve previously said, “It is not just that the Backstop itself is toxic, but, because it can only be replaced at the EU’s pleasure, its tenets and principles will inevitably become the template for any replacement, guaranteeing that any replacement would be equally destructive of Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom.

“Hence, the necessity of ensuring the Backstop is stillborn. Otherwise, we will be saddled with the annexation of Northern Ireland as a EU territory in perpetuity.

“Once the EU is given a veto on our escape from the Backstop it is self-evident nothing less pernicious will ever be permitted by Brussels, or Dublin. So, it is no exaggeration to say that the survival of Northern Ireland, as an integral part of the UK and its economy, is now dependent on rejection of the Backstop. It is as simple as that. This, I believe, is the reality that most unionists get.”

We’re heading towards… something. Just one day before the big Brexit vote, and with 74 days until our scheduled departure from the EU, nobody knows whether we will be cancelling Brexit, delaying it, leaving with a deal or leaving without a deal. Whichever our destiny, there are enormous risks, either political or economic.

More reassuringly for LabourList readers, any path taken would seem to split the Conservative Party. Of course, Labour has its own deep and numerous problems with Brexit. The famous conference composite motion is used by every camp to argue their position, and there is little consensus on the meaning of the commitments made in September. Various pro-EU groups from across the factional spectrum have clashed with the leadership’s position on a fresh EU referendum in particular, and other issues such as free movement have angered some grassroots activists.

Labour MPs represent the Brexit rainbow: there’s Kate Hoey, who supports no deal; Leavers willing to vote for Theresa May’s deal; left-wing Eurosceptics reluctant to defy the whip thanks to their support for Jeremy Corbyn; Corbynsceptics and soft-lefties who campaigned to remain but represent Leave seats; People’s Vote campaigners opposing any deal in the hope they can stop Brexit; the list goes on. Back in November, the Guardian designated categories such as ‘the Labour frontbench’ and ‘Veteran Labour Brexiters’, but even those aren’t internally congruous.

Labour and Corbyn are still doing better than the Tories and May on party unity, however. Perhaps this is the fate of both main parties eventually, but it’s important to note that it seems anything Theresa May does now will divide the Conservatives or bring down the government. Several ministers have openly admitted they would resign should no-deal happen; if she drives through a version of her deal, the DUP will end the confidence-and-supply agreement. Despite Labour’s many tensions, ahead of the meaningful vote taking place tomorrow, only three Labour MPs so far look likely to vote in favour of the Tory deal: John Mann, Jim Fitzpatrick and Kevin Barron.

That isn’t to underestimate the Labour drama that will follow the meaningful vote. Those in favour of another referendum fully expect the leader to table a motion of no confidence in the government quickly, then move on to supporting a fresh public vote (although the composite motion only promises to keep that option on the table). Many members have expressed this assumption, including Sadiq Khan on Pienaar’s Politics yesterday, and yet this sequence of events is far from certain. Don’t be surprised when the Labour leadership continues to factor in electoral strategy and the need to gain Conservative-Leave marginals when taking its next steps on Brexit this week. Remember that our enemy is the Tories, not the man trying to win the next election for the Labour Party.

Jeremy Corbyn refused to say that Labour would table a motion of no confidence in the government on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning, but said it would be “soon”. The leader denied being against free movement, but did not say it would be kept under a Labour Brexit deal. He also confirmed that Labour winning an election would mean Article 50 extension. Corbyn said he would “rather get a negotiated deal” than hold another EU referendum. Finally, he defended John Bercow.

On a vote of no confidence in the government: “We will table a motion of no confidence in the government at a time of our choosing. It’s going to be soon, don’t worry about that… We’ll have the vote and then we’ll see what happens.”

On Labour’s Brexit policy in its next manifesto, Corbyn explained how the Clause V meeting (including the national executive, shadow cabinet, etc) that would be held to decide the position showed he is not a “dictator”.

On whether Labour is campaigning to leave: “No… We’re campaigning for a country that is brought together by investment.”

On free movement: “I’m not against the free movement of people. What I want to end is the undercutting of workers’ rights and conditions.” Later, he said free movement “would be open to negotiation”, but added: “Diane Abbott has made it very clear our migration policy will be based on the needs and rights of people to work in this country.”

On EU citizens’ rights: “We would unilaterally legislate to guarantee them all permanent rights of residence in Britain.”

On extending Article 50: “Clearly, if Theresa May’s deal is voted down, and clearly, if a general election takes place and a Labour government comes in… there would have to be time for those negotiations.”

On another EU referendum: “My own view is that I would rather get a negotiated deal now, if we can, to stop the danger of a no deal exit from the European Union on the 29th March, which would be catastrophic.”

On Speaker Bercow: “I think he’s a very good Speaker… The attacks on him are really unfair and unwarranted.”

John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw and 2016 leave campaigner, confirmed he would be voting for May’s deal on Tuesday.

On voting for May’s deal: “A day is long time in politics so things can change, but as it stands it is likely I will vote for the deal.”

On ‘no deal’ and extending Article 50: “There is no such thing as no deal. The no deal option actually means thousands of deals into the future with the European Union. I think the mess and chaos and uncertainty that will cause negotiating all those thousands of deals is the worst option other than putting it off. The worst of anything would be delaying Article 50 for me.”

Labour MP John Mann says that it is “likely” that he will support Theresa May’s Brexit deal, and says a number of Labour MPs will likely do the same #Ridgepic.twitter.com/sEOeoEn84x

Rebecca Long-Bailey, Labour MP for Salford and Eccles and Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary, gave similar answers to Jeremy Corbyn on Marr.

On Labour’s objections to May’s deal, Long-Bailey highlighted “the customs union backstop” instead of a “permanent customs union deal with a right for Britain to have a say in future trade deals”, the “extremely ambiguous” political declaration and the need for a “strong single market relationship”.

On a vote of no confidence: “We’ll wait and see what happens on Tuesday and we’ll act at the appropriate time.”

On whether Labour would campaign for Brexit in a general election: “Our current manifesto states that we respect the result of the referendum and we want a deal that puts our economy first. Now ultimately of course, when we go through the next manifesto making process, we’ll have those discussions within the Labour Party but that is our position.”

On Barry Gardiner saying that Labour would hold another referendum after winning an election and negotiating a new deal: “That’s not official party policy at this stage.”

Jeremy Corbyn has said that he would “rather get a negotiated deal” than hold another EU referendum.

Appearing on The Andrew Marr Show this morning, the opposition leader said that if Labour fails to force a general election, the party is then “into the consideration” of another referendum.

But he told Marr: “My own view is that I would rather get a negotiated deal now, if we can, to stop the danger of a no deal exit from the European Union on the 29th March, which would be catastrophic.”

Corbyn confirmed that he would not consider supporting the government in the meaningful vote on Tuesday, despite Theresa May’s last-ditch attempts to garner support for her deal from members on the opposition benches.

But his preference for a negotiated deal opens up the possibility that Labour could back a softer deal negotiated by May, such as one including permanent customs union membership.

Although Corbyn recently described no-deal preparations as “Project Fear” and the leader’s office is understood to believe that the Prime Minister would not countenance no deal, he argued today that a negotiated deal must be approved to avoid leaving the EU without a deal.

Corbyn said: “I think parliament did vote for an amendment to the Finance Bill this week, which indicated its opposition to no deal, but it isn’t totally specific on it. We will do everything we can to prevent a no deal exit.”

On #PeoplesVote: If you don’t get a general election, do you then go for a People’s Vote?

It’s been a long and dramatic week in Westminster, but what has actually changed? Jeremy Corbyn made a big speech on Brexit, which told us what we already knew about Labour’s position, i.e. push for general election, get a better deal. For some reason, pundits were surprised that there was nothing new in the speech, though announcing a policy shift now – before the Tuesday vote – would have made little sense. The purpose of the Labour leader’s address was basically, as I understand, to achieve the goals set out in yesterday’s email: communicating his top priority of forcing an election and establishing a narrative that works for Labour.

Theresa May’s deal is still going to heavily defeated – by more than 200 votes according to most estimates. Only one Tory backbencher, George Freeman, has changed his vote and taken the ‘my deal or no deal’ bait; so far, the majority of MPs aren’t convinced by her ultimatum. As Angela Eagle writes for LabourList today, this failure is down to the Prime Minister’s consistent approach ruled by her “partisan and authoritarian instincts”, which have further divided the country and parliament and done nothing to heal our wounds.

We now hear that May has been on the phone to trade union leaders in a desperate bid to shore up support for her deal. This move has surprised many, but the most puzzling choice is not that she approached Unite’s Len McCluskey and GMB’s Tim Roache yesterday, but that she took so long to do so. And she only did so after it was requested by Labour backbenchers – the ‘inbetweeners’ group including Lisa Nandy and Caroline Flint, who campaigned for Remain but represent Leave seats. They themselves, despite having spent months openly considering voting for a Tory deal, were only invited to Downing Street this week. It’s important to note that Gareth Snell, who was at that meeting, still intends to vote against the deal. Too little, too late, Theresa May.

This morning, appearing on Radio 4’s Today, Jeremy Hunt argued that the week’s events proved Speaker Bercow would “frustrate the government at any opportunity” and MPs would “find a way” to block no-deal. Rejecting May’s deal could mean “paralysis”, the Foreign Secretary said. The government is making last-ditch efforts to appeal to Labour MPs, but also to its own Brexiteers here. Can that multipronged approach work, or does it just make everyone unhappy and distrustful? The crucial question is whether May, after suffering a heavy defeat on Tuesday, will U-turn on customs union membership and put all her eggs in Labour’s basket.

Today is the tenth birthday of LabourList, which launched on 10th January 2009. First edited by Derek Draper, whose dramatic entry and exit from the project remains unrivalled (so far), the site was then under the helm of Alex Smith, Mark Ferguson and Peter Edwards, all of whom contributed brilliant reporting and helped grow this mailing list, which now has over 37,000 subscribers. I’ve only been in post less than a year, but hope I have provided some clarity and useful analysis in these interesting times. To mark the occasion, I’ve rounded up the most-read comment pieces of the last ten years and made an anniversary survey, where you can quickly offer your views on the last decade of Labour leaders, events and campaigns.

Also in celebration of our birthday I’m sure, Jeremy Corbyn will make a speech on Brexit in Wakefield, Yorkshire, this morning. The Labour leader is expected to argue that a general election is the best way to break the Brexit deadlock, insisting that a government with a fresh mandate would be able to “negotiate a better deal for Britain and secure support for it in parliament and in the country”. Corbyn will pair this demand with his take on what really divides the UK: whether you’re living in Tottenham or Mansfield (marginal seat klaxon), he will say, “you’re up against it”. The split is not between Leavers and Remains, according to Corbyn, but “between the many, who do the work, create the wealth and pay taxes, and the few, who set the rules, reap the rewards and so often dodge taxes”.

This speech normalises the idea of a general election and effectively communicates it as Labour’s top priority to the public. It also establishes a narrative that our two irreconcilable electoral camps – pro-EU metropolitan seats and Leave-voting marginals that need to be won back – have more in common than often assumed during this all-consuming Brexit crisis. More generally, it shifts the focus from Brexit, i.e. tricky ground for the party, to Corbyn’s comfort zone, which is talking about the need to oppose “the entrenched power of a privileged elite”. In sum, it works on many levels – but Labour still needs to work out a way to actually force that election.

The government was defeated for a second time in 24 hours yesterday: the (latest) Grieve amendment forces the Prime Minister, after losing her meaningful vote on Tuesday, to return with a ‘Plan B’ within three sitting days. (This involved dramatic scenes in the Commons – if you missed the afternoon’s events, read my explainer.) This is crunch time. Most likely to happen over the next week: the deal is voted down; Theresa May secures some assurances from the EU on the backstop; she returns with a slightly modified plan. Unless the backstop is scrapped, the DUP won’t be having it. But the government could win support from opposition MPs.

Update, 11am: LabourList has been told by Snell’s office that the MP still intends to vote against May’s deal, and the amendment relates to “the conversation about future domestic legislation” – not getting her deal passed.

“The suggestion that Article 50 could be extended is but a Remainer wheeze to ensure we don’t leave, as promised, on 29th March, or ever.

“Rather than allowing more time for meaningful negotiations it would entrench the EU in the belief that Brexit can be thwarted. It certainly would not bring Brussels to offer an acceptable deal. Only leaving with no deal will bring the EU, and particularly Dublin, to their senses. Then, and only then, will we get serious negotiations.

“A second deception which no one should fall for is that the EU which insisted on the Backstop – if we were foolish enough to accept it – would allow it to be superseded in trade negotiations by something which would liberate Northern Ireland from its grip. The principle of annexation of NI as an EU protectorate, once accepted, will not be reversed in any trade deal, because the EU (driven by Dublin) that got away it in the Backstop will make it the price of any trade deal outcome.

“So, anyone who thinks that suffering the Backstop would be short-term pain and merely temporary is deluded. If Mrs May’s deal was accepted, then, the principle of separate treatment and separation for Northern Ireland is accepted and will inform everything hereafter. Hence, the necessity of comprehensively rejecting and defeating this sellout deal. There is no room for compromise nor honeyed amendments. The toxicity of the legal text of the Agreement is unaffected by such empty gestures.”

The government has been defeated again today, following another historic defeat last night, as MPs passed an amendment tabled by Tory backbencher Dominic Grieve by 308 votes to 297.

Commenting on the amendment passing, Labour’s Brexit spokesperson Keir Starmer said: “The government’s decision to delay the meaningful vote has run down the clock and increased the risk of a no deal Brexit.

“If the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal is defeated next week, she must return to parliament as soon as possible and give MPs a real say on what happens next.”

The Grieve amendment, which was approved by the Commons with a majority of 11, aims to force the Prime Minister to return to the House with an alternative plan by Monday 21st January after her deal is voted on Tuesday.

Without the amendment, the government would have had to make a statement on the next steps for Brexit within 21 days, then allow a Commons vote within seven sitting days.

Thanks to another Grieve amendment passed before the Christmas recess, the ‘Plan B’ motion will be amendable. This enables MPs, including the opposition, to propose their own alternative Brexit plans, such as the membership of a customs union favoured by Labour.

If Theresa May’s deal is voted down as anticipated on Tuesday, it has now been determined that she will have six calendar days to secure reassurances from the EU ahead of another vote.

Speaker Bercow’s decision to select the Grieve amendment today – despite it changing a business motion normally expected to be amendable by government only – was controversial.

For over an hour, following PMQs this afternoon, the Speaker took points of order on his ruling. A number of Tory MPs accused Bercow, who is thought to be a Remainer, of bias and of undermining the “integrity” of his position as Commons Speaker.

Conservative backbencher Crispin Blunt described Bercow as “no longer neutral”, but the Speaker defended his ruling, saying: “If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change.”

Many members on the opposition benches spoke up to support Bercow, and it is widely understood that Labour’s backing of the Speaker protects him from being ousted by MPs.

When the Prime Minister decided to delay the meaningful vote on her Brexit deal by a month because she was facing a historic defeat, with more than 100 Tories ready to vote it down, she pledged to gain legally binding assurances from the EU. At the December EU summit, Theresa May was to secure guarantees in writing that would reassure MPs on the Irish backstop and change their minds on her withdrawal agreement. “She pledged to get these changes over the recess,” Jeremy Corbyn pointed out at PMQs today. “She failed. Isn’t the Prime Minister bringing back exactly the same deal she admitted would be defeated four weeks ago?”

May argued in response that she has won clarifications on the backstop (not enough), published a package of commitments for Northern Ireland (already rejected by the DUP) and plans to give parliament a greater role in the process. MPs are to be offered a vote, in 2020, she revealed, on either extending the transition period or enacting the backstop. This would force parliamentarians to choose between the backstop – i.e. their main objection to the deal – and paying more to the EU without representation, which is bound to be offensive to their constituents. Not much of a choice there.

Much of PMQs this afternoon saw the Labour leader setting out his complaint that no-deal preparations are a “costly charade”. This echoed his widely misinterpreted comment earlier this week, when accusing the Prime Minister of engaging in “Project Fear” – a reference to the futility and expense of no-deal prep, not the argument hard Brexiteers make that no-deal is nothing to be feared. “End this costly charade and rule out no deal,” Corbyn demanded. “The only way to avoid no deal is to vote for the deal,” came the inevitable reply from May.

The difficulty of this exchange, and the reason it is repeated ad infinitum, is that both are right in different ways. It is true to say, as Corbyn presumably wagers, that Theresa May will not want her legacy to be the chaos of an unmanaged no-deal outcome (which has just become more unmanageable thanks to the government defeat yesterday). Her remarkable efforts to cling onto power despite losing further confidence and authority every day are explained by her determination to get and pass a Brexit deal. A bad deal if necessary, despite her patently false “no deal better than a bad deal” slogan.

It is also correct, however, that MPs will be getting no deal unless they agree on something. And although MPs have repeatedly shown – with particular force last night – that a majority amongst them are opposed to no deal, there have not been any signs so far that a Brexit solution can win approval in the Commons. Not a ‘managed no deal’, nor ‘Norway Plus’, nor a ‘people’s vote’. It still looks as if the only way through is Labour’s proposal, which requires toppling the government and securing an election. Or does it? If May returns to the chamber with a Plan B, it should be amendable according to the pre-Christmas Grieve amendment. This would allow MPs to put forward their own alternatives, which might be the key to breaking the deadlock.

The Brexit debate in the Commons resumes today, following a month of delay during which almost nothing changed, except that the Article 50 clock ran down further. With an eye on the March 29th exit date, members across the House are understandably keen to get things moving quickly – after suffering through five days of debate before the meaningful vote on Tuesday, that is.

This afternoon, once PMQs and other necessaries are concluded in the chamber, a business motion will set out the timetable for Brexit Debate Take Two. To this motion, a cross-party amendment led by Tory backbenchers Dominic Grieve and Oliver Letwin has been tabled; this would force the government to return with an amendable next-steps motion by the end of next week should the deal be voted down as expected.

The amendment won’t necessarily be voted on (there is confusion over whether the motion can only be amended by government), but the move shows that senior MPs on Theresa May’s own benches are getting impatient. Crucially, it is evidence that their fear of no-deal is translating into rebellious efforts in defiance of the Prime Minister’s will rather than deference to her deal.

These attempts to grab power from the executive and award it to parliament come after another significant government defeat on Brexit. Last night, MPs approved the Yvette Cooper amendment to the Finance Bill by 303 to 296 votes. Three Brexiteer Labour MPs voted against (Kate Hoey, Graham Stringer, Ronnie Campbell), plus abstentions; 20 Tories rebelled against their whip.

The Cooper amendment restricts government tax-raising powers in the event of no-deal. What this doesn’t mean: no-deal has been blocked. What this does mean: the government will find it harder to manage no-deal. The effects of Cooper’s change aren’t inherently all that important. But this was a historic defeat, being on a Finance Bill; likely represents the first in a long line of anti-no-deal actions; and shows the parliamentary strength of opposition against no-deal even in a symbolic vote.

This morning, Barry Gardiner confirmed on Radio 4 that Labour will table a vote of no confidence in the government once the meaningful vote is lost. (Notwithstanding this well-spotted but probably inconsequential caveat.) The frontbencher heard accusations that the opposition party “bottled it” last time, despite it being clear that the VONC will not be successful unless Theresa May’s deal passes (at which point the DUP promises to withdraw support). Which means that it would have failed last time, and will probably fail this time.

The debate over the no-confidence vote really comes back to Labour’s internal row over whether to back another referendum. This afternoon, the party’s International Policy Commission will meet at 1.30pm to discuss Brexit policy. According to the People’s Vote campaign, 10,000 pro-PV members have contacted the National Policy Forum ahead of this meeting to lobby the commission, which includes members of the shadow cabinet and national executive committee, Len McCluskey, pro-EU elected reps, and more. Fireworks? My Labour Brexit 8-ball says ‘signs point to yes’. Keep an eye on LabourList for more on this later today.

A cross-party amendment laid down by backbench Labour MP Yvette Cooper and supported by the opposition frontbench has passed by 303 to 296 votes, representing another major government defeat on Brexit.

Commenting on the win, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: “This vote is an important step to prevent a no deal Brexit. It shows that there is no majority in parliament, the cabinet or the country for crashing out of the EU without an agreement.

“That is why we are taking every opportunity possible in parliament to prevent no deal. Theresa May must now rule out no deal once and for all.”

The change to the Finance Bill will require the government to either extend Article 50 or gain the approval of parliament before being able to use tax-raising powers in the event of ‘no deal’.

By preventing the government from implementing no deal provisions without MPs’ consent, its aim is to help block the possibility of leaving the EU without a divorce deal.

Cooper explained in a piece for The Guardian today: “The amendment doesn’t affect the normal operations of the Treasury and government. But it does make it harder for the government to drift into no deal without parliament being able to direct it.”

The result of the vote confirms that there is no Commons majority for a no deal outcome. However, the amendment does not block no deal in itself; instead it simply makes that option more difficult to navigate.

During the debate, Tory backbencher Oliver Letwin told the Commons that he and Nicholas Soames MP, usually loyal to Theresa May, would rebel against the party whip for only the second time in their lives by voting for the amendment.

Over 200 local Labour parties are set to debate an anti-Brexit motion organised by left-wing group Another Europe is Possible by the end of the month, and campaigners hope that a majority will pass.

The motion resolves to strengthen the Labour Party policy position in opposition to Brexit in a number of ways, resolving:

That all Labour MPs must vote against the Tory Brexit deal.

That Labour must demand, and to prepare for, an immediate general election.

That Labour must campaign for a public vote on Brexit with an option to remain, and include such a vote in our manifesto.

To notify the NEC, NPF and party leadership of this motion’s passing.

To make this policy part of our doorstep and street activity, and to contact Another Europe is Possible for materials and assistance in campaigning.

To welcome the letter similar to this motion published by Labour activists in the Guardian on 10 December, calling for the creation of a campaigning network for these goals, and will cooperate in that project, adding our name to the letter.

To support calls for a half-day emergency conference so that members can clearly decide Labour’s Brexit policy.

After rallying party members in the run-up to conference in September, which saw over 100 Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) submit motions in favour of a fresh EU referendum, Another Europe is Possible has been phonebanking activists with the aim of coordinating efforts to make members’ pro-EU views heard within Labour.

Commenting on the new motion, organiser Ana Oppenheim said: “The appetite at the grassroots to take a clear stand against Brexit is overwhelming. As the sequence of events unfolds in parliament, we need to look a the reality. Brexit is an attack on working class people, dripping with imperial nostalgia and migrant-bashing. If Labour fails to oppose it, we will lose millions of voters…

“More and more, party activists, especially on the left, are seeing this clearly. By the end of January, we reckon that a majority of CLPs could have debated a motion – and a big majority will pass it.”

Campaign for Labour Party Democracy

Meanwhile, left-wing group the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy has launched a defence of the Brexit composite motion passed at Labour conference, which vowed to “support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”, though only after trying and failing to secure a general election.

Peter Willsman, CLPD secretary and member of Labour’s national executive committee, commented: “We believe it is important that CLPs defend Labour’s conference policy on the Brexit negotiations and support our party leadership, which is implementing this agreed policy. We would also urge CLPs to reject the proposals to overturn conference policy.”

The organisation, which has clashed with fellow Corbynite group Momentum on several issues over the last few months, has drawn up a model motion for CLPs to debate and approve. It argues that pressure being exerted on the party to immediately back a fresh public vote on EU membership would “overturn” existing Labour policy.

“We commend the party leadership for making people’s jobs and living standards the priority concern informing its tactics on this issue,” the motion concludes, after describing a general election and resulting Labour government as the “best outcome”.

Momentum

Although Momentum used to be a battleground for disagreements between those for and against the Labour leadership’s Brexit stance, the group has largely distanced itself from the debate. At party conference, it had no formal position on Brexit, and only afterwards undertook a consultation of its members.

Momentum’s survey showed that 41% of its members support a ‘people’s vote’ in “all circumstances”, while only 17% said they did not want another Brexit referendum at all. 92% of respondents said they wanted all Labour MPs to vote down Theresa May’s Brexit deal.

AEIP organiser Michael Chessum, who worked on Jeremy Corbyn’s 2016 leadership campaign, interpreted the results as proof that “the activist base of the Labour left is overwhelmingly in favour of a fresh referendum if no general election can happen”. He commented at the time: “There is simply no excuse – either for Labour as a whole, or for individual Labour MPs – not to oppose this agenda and give the people a final say.”

Other activities

In December, an open letter with 250 signatories calling for an emergency party conference was sent to Labour general secretary Jennie Formby and the NEC. LabourList understands that the Labour member who sent the letter has not received acknowledgement or response from any NEC members. The same activist has now launched an online petition demanding a special conference on Brexit to “clarify and adjust” party policy, which has gathered almost 3,500 signatures from party members.

Last night, as a cross-party group of over 55 MPs wrote to the Metropolitan Police raising concerns about far-right protestors’ “intimidatory and potentially criminal” acts against politicians and journalists outside parliament, people switched on their TVs to watch James Graham’s new drama – Brexit: The Uncivil War. That intrastate war is, of course, still being waged, and it remains unclear who will be the victor.

Yvette Cooper hopes it won’t be the hard Brexiteers wanting to leave the EU without a deal. The backbench Labour MP has laid down a cross-party amendment to the Finance Bill that would see the government’s tax powers curtailed in the event of no-deal, unless parliament specifically voted for that outcome (not going to happen). To avoid the restrictions, a deal would have to be approved (not looking likely) or Article 50 extended (increasingly plausible, whatever the government says). Cooper explains in The Guardian: “The amendment doesn’t affect the normal operations of the Treasury and government. But it does make it harder for the government to drift into no deal without parliament being able to direct it.” Around a dozen Tories (probably on this list) are rumoured to be supporting the move, which could be enough to get it through this afternoon.

Richard Corbett writes for LabourList today about Labour’s own position and what he sees as the only options left on the battlefield. The European Parliamentary Labour Party leader, who publicly supports a fresh referendum unlike Cooper, rejects the idea of a different deal and sees stopping Brexit as the only possible path left for the party. He points to the YouGov poll widely promoted by pro-EU activists last week, and argues that “there are more gains to be made from Remainers than from Leavers”. But the leadership isn’t convinced. It doesn’t believe Labour can stop Brexit and thinks it would be dangerous – electorally and in a long-term, destroying-the-social-fabric-of-our-society kind of way – to try.

Tomorrow Labour’s International Policy Commission will meet and discuss Brexit. The body includes members of the shadow cabinet, national executive committee (NEC) and national policy forum (NPF), as well as affiliates, and its role is to develop foreign policy. Clashes are to be expected. In the run-up to the meeting, pro-EU groups have been encouraging submissions in favour of another referendum and an emergency party conference. Plus, Another Europe is Possible says hundreds of local parties are set to debate its left-wing anti-Brexit motion by the end of the month. Yet Corbyn has been clear that he thinks Theresa May should return to Brussels and renegotiate once her deal is voted down next week. Labour’s own internal war over Brexit continues.

Jeremy Corbyn today slammed the government’s Brexit offer as a “Frankenstein monster of a deal” and accused Theresa May of “trying to run down the clock” and “blackmail the country”.

The Labour leader was asking an urgent question in the House of Commons on the changes to the EU Withdrawal Agreement. It was granted by the Speaker, but the Prime Minister did not come to the chamber to answer, with Stephen Barclay stepping up instead.

Addressing the new Brexit Secretary, Corbyn focussed on seeking confirmation that the delayed meaningful vote will indeed be held on 15th January.

He asked: “What guarantees do we have that, faced with a yet another humiliating defeat, the Prime Minister won’t just run away?

“Can the Secretary of State do what the Prime Minister should be doing today, and confirm the timetable for the meaningful vote, and provide what we’ve not received before – a cast iron promise this will not be reneged on yet again?”

Corbyn added: “The government is trying to run down the clock in an attempt to blackmail this House and the country in supporting a botched deal.

“She has refused to work with the majority in the last few months, in a desperate attempt to spark life into what is actually a Frankenstein monster of a deal.

“We’re now told if we don’t support it, our government is prepared to push our whole economy off a cliff edge. And to prove this, no deal preparations are underway.”

In the debate following the question, MPs also pressed the Brexit Secretary on whether the government would consider extending Article 50. Responding to members, Barclay said the vote would take place next week and described not extending Article 50 as “the government’s firm intention”.

In his reply, Barclay echoed May’s response to Andrew Marr on Sunday: “If the deal does not go ahead, we will be in unchartered water.” It is widely expected that, should the draft agreement be voted down the first time next week, the government will attempt to put the same deal to another Commons vote.

Theresa May is only expected to update the Commons on progress in EU talks on Wednesday, when the meaningful vote debate resumes.

The Times reports that the PM is not intending to update the HoC on progress made on achieving legal changes to her Withdrawal deal until Weds. This would mean MPs would have no advanced notice of what they are being asked to start debating or voting upon. She must come today.

Hello. MPs are back from Christmas recess, and LabourList is back in your inbox every weekday morning. On Brexit, nothing has changed, as they say. Theresa May is still trying to “seek assurances” from the EU on the main sticking point of her deal, the backstop, while Labour pledges to vote it down. The Prime Minister doesn’t seem to have made any progress in talks with EU leaders, as expected, so the next question is whether she will delay the meaningful vote once again – pushing it back further from 15th January – or see it fail and force the Commons to repeatedly vote on her deal until it passes.

Appearing on The Andrew Marr Show yesterday, May refused to rule out the try, try and try again option (describing the event of her deal not being approved as “unchartered territory”), though Labour Remainer Chuka Umunna reckons this isn’t allowed under House of Commons rules. “I have consulted with the Clerks of the House of Commons on this – you cannot simply bring the same motion again and again and again,” Umunna told Sky’s Sophy Ridge, before quoting Erskine May on Twitter.

All bits of Brexit news involve the respective campaign groups digging their heels in. A significant number on the opposition benches continue to push for a fresh EU referendum, but that path hasn’t won majority Commons support and there is plenty yet to be resolved (e.g. options on the ballot paper, which Umunna says he is “open minded” about). The frontbench position is unmoved: shadow cabinet members point to unlikely scenarios in which Labour could back a fresh public vote, with Barry Gardiner suggesting a Labour government would put its alternative deal to the people, and Emily Thornberry saying the party would be in favour if May were replaced by a Tory no-dealer. Speaking to John Pienaar yesterday, the Shadow Foreign Secretary pointedly added that some within the People’s Vote movement want to “slap the Labour Party around”.

Over 200 MPs from across the House have today written to the Prime Minister, calling on her to rule out a no deal Brexit. The concerned signatories particularly highlight the effect trading on World Trade Organisation rules could have on the manufacturing industry. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has called such warnings “hysterical”, and hard Brexiteers say Tories are more relaxed than ever about a no-deal outcome.

Another cross-party demand is published today in the form of Lucy Powell and Robert Halfon’s ‘Common Market 2.0’ report advocating the Norway Plus model (single market and customs union membership). But this is still often seen as a bad compromise, with Remainers and Leavers both keen to point out how the model requires becoming a rule-taker and doesn’t end free movement. People’s Vote supporter Peter Kyle commented that the Norway ship has sailed, reflecting the view set out by fellow PV-er Mike Gapes on LabourList last month.

There is some respite from Brexit news: the government’s domestic agenda struggles on, as newly appointed frontbencher Amber Rudd has decided to delay the disastrous roll-out of Universal Credit. Expect more details at work and pensions questions this afternoon, before MPs debate Laura Cox’s report into bullying and harassment in Westminster. Happy new year!

On the government’s 10-year NHS plan: “People are waiting longer under this Tory government because the Tories have been running down the NHS for nine years, starving it of cash, cutting it back, privatising elements of it, failing to get the staff we need… It doesn’t need 10 more years of the Tories.”

On Brexit: “We’re not enabling Brexit. We had a referendum… That’s the way the country voted.”

On May’s deal: “We are committed to voting against Theresa May’s Brexit deal. Goodness knows whether we’ll actually have a vote on it next week given the speculation in the newspapers again. It wouldn’t surprise me if that’s delayed.”

On another deal: “If that’s voted down, it’s incumbent on the government to come forward with alternative proposals and try to renegotiate.”

On getting a fresh EU referendum: “I am not going to be disingenuous and pretend that we have the numbers for a People’s Vote.”

On the meaningful vote going ahead: “If she doesn’t hold that vote, she arguably will have misled the House of Commons and there will be moves on a cross-party basis from the backbenches to ensure that the will of the House is tested.”

On the ballot paper for another referendum: Remain, plus “I do think that you have to have an option on that ballot paper that would please the likes of Peter Bone, that is a hard Brexit”, i.e. no deal. “I would say two or three [options]. I am pretty open minded about it.”

On May’s deal being put to a Commons vote several times: “I have consulted with the Clerks of the House of Commons on this – you cannot simply bring the same motion again and again and again… Even if you sought say to bring a different motion through changing one word, if in substance it is the same thing, under the rules of the House of Commons, you can’t just keep bringing it again and again and again.”

“The People’s Vote is your route to stop our country crashing out of the EU in a very disastrous way” – @ChukaUmunna tells #Ridge he is “open-minded” about whether a second referendum would have 2 or 3 options.

On the government’s 10-year NHS plan: “I would have more confidence in their 10-year plan if the five-year plan that they announced in 2014 had actually been delivered on.”

On an election: “That is the quickest way of getting a people’s vote – you can have a general election in four and a half weeks.”

On a fresh referendum: “It is the responsibility of government to try and unite the country, not to divide it.”

On Labour’s preferred Brexit outcome: “If we as a new incoming Labour government were to go to Europe without [May’s] red lines, we know that we could get a different, better deal and that’s what we want to try and achieve.”

On being able to strike trade deals as a member of a customs union: “We would have a customs union just like there is in Mercosur in South America where each individual sovereign nation is able to determine whether a trade agreement that they conclude jointly with other countries should go ahead or not.”

“What’s your feeling on a second referendum? Would you like to see one?” – Sophy #Ridge asks @BarryGardiner about the People’s Vote, discussed by @ChukaUmunna earlier.

Emily Thornberry, Shadow Foreign Secretary and Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury:

On a fresh referendum: “It’s our policy that we go for a general election.” But Thornberry also said that if May were replaced by a hard Tory Brexiteer intent on leaving the EU without a deal, Labour would back another referendum.

On ‘people’s vote’ supporters: “Some people within the People’s Vote movement seem to think that their purpose is to slap the Labour Party around.”

On a vote of no confidence in the government: “We want to do things that are effective… We will be doing it when we expect to win it.”

“For TUV the imperative in 2019 is a proper Brexit on 29th March. Hence, the necessity of defeating Mrs May’s disastrous Backstop proposal, which would surrender Northern Ireland to a foreign customs union subject to EU laws and tariffs into which it would have no input, never mind control.

“The constitutional trap of the Backstop is that it leaves only this part of the UK within the Customs Union of the EU and thereby pushes the EU customs frontier to the Irish Sea, leaving us annexed and cut off. Thus the defeat of the Backstop is essential to our constitutional integrity and future growth as a part of the UK. Otherwise, we morph under Dublin and Brussels control.

“Leaving the EU without a deal would be highly preferable for the whole United Kingdom to Mrs May’s perfidious deal. It would not involve “crashing out” into economic oblivion but leaving on ordered World Trade terms – the very terms on which much of our trade is already conducted. With an extra £39b in our pocket and the ability to immediately move to new trade deals, prosperity, not penury, would be our evolving destiny.

“Nor, would it be long before the EU would be knocking our door looking for a deal, as their need for our trade is greater than ours is for theirs. Leaving without a deal will bring Brussels and particularly Dublin to their senses.

“So, I have no fear of a WTO Brexit.

“There is a reason, of course, for the hysteria of nationalism over Brexit. Nationalism, both Scottish and Irish, can see that growth for the UK outside the EU, arising from trade deals with the burgeoning economies, will bring prosperity across the UK and thereby diminish interest in breaking up the UK. Only the diehards would put their nationalist ideology above prosperity. Hence, a proper Brexit secures the Union.

“The other big event of 2019 will be the Local Government elections in May.

“The shocking revelations of RHI, along with the Sri Lankan holiday scandal and other excesses, have brought Unionism to the low point of Sinn Fein, with all its odious past, setting itself up to lecture us on the standards required in public life.

“Those who brought brand unionism so low have much to answer for. The local government elections will afford an opportunity to recalibrate. TUV, untainted by these scandals, or the Stormont Shambles, will offer a fresh start.

“Through a proper and complete Brexit 2019 can go down in our nation’s history as a momentous turning point for the better. May it be so. “

After paying tribute to the Lockerbie victims, Jeremy Corbyn kicked off the last PMQs of 2018 by confirming that his Christmas good wishes extended to members on the Tory benches. But he followed it up with a damning verdict of his opposite’s performance: “The Prime Minister has plunged this country into a national crisis. She refused parliament the right to vote on her Brexit deal. She said that she did that to seek further assurances. She failed.” With 100 days to go until the UK leaves the EU, no parliamentary approval for the withdrawal agreement and expensive emergency ‘no deal’ preparations taking place, the conclusion is difficult to argue with.

The Prime Minister is “running down the clock on the alternatives”.

In his very first question, Corbyn mentioned “the alternatives”. Careful listeners belonging to Labour’s pro-‘people’s vote’ camp may have been cheered by this choice of wording, but if so they are probably being overly optimistic. Corbyn’s mention of “alternatives” may be misinterpreted by Remainer Tories too. Anna Soubry later asked a question reminding MPs of the ‘indicative votes’ idea floated by a few cabinet members over the last week, which would give MPs free (unwhipped) votes on all Brexit options.

But the Labour leader has been clear in every interview that he does not favour a fresh referendum. And The New Statesman has today published a piece by Unite’s Len McCluskey, a close ally of Corbyn, that warns another public vote “risks tearing our society apart”. Corbyn’s “alternatives” are therefore more likely a reference to his alternative Brexit plan.

May can’t get “reassurances” from the EU if they’ve been ruled out and there are no further European Council meetings.

The crux of Corbyn’s argument at PMQs was designed to cause anxiety amongst Tory and DUP MPs. The Labour leader put his finger on the main problem for May: “Can the Prime Minister explain to us when the European Council will meet to approve the changes that they have already ruled out?” He later added: “There are no meetings of the European Union Council scheduled until March 21st. And the EU has been very clear there are no more negotiations, clarifications, or meetings. She will be bringing back the same deal she pulled last week.”

May tried to mock Corbyn (“There are some people who say the leader of the opposition is just going through the motions – this week he hasn’t even done that”). However, the key fact remains that, without something substantial from the EU on the backstop, her Conservative colleagues will struggle to row back on their promises not to vote for her deal.

She’s a “stupid woman”?

The camera caught Corbyn appearing to call May a “stupid woman” at the end of the session. According to his spokesman, the Labour leader actually said “stupid people”, but the row about the comment is now likely to overshadow all of the above.

175 Labour MPs signed Jeremy Corbyn’s motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister within two hours of its tabling yesterday.

Over two thirds of the parliamentary party, including MPs such as Chuka Umunna and Neil Coyle, quickly rallied behind the Labour leader’s efforts to apply pressure on Theresa May and stop her ‘running down the clock’ on Brexit.

Commenting on the signatories, Labour Party chair Ian Lavery MP said: “It’s great to see Labour MPs acting against this Prime Minister’s shameless attempt to run down the clock, rob MPs of a proper meaningful vote on her botched Brexit deal, and risk the chaos of a no deal Brexit.

“We stand together to say we’ve had enough of this Prime Minister’s contempt for parliament and the people. Last week, 117 of her own Tory MPs said they had no confidence in her – she’s lost the confidence of parliament and this country.

“After two years of failed negotiation, it’s clear the Conservatives cannot deliver the Brexit deal the country needs. They need to make way for a party that can.”

The Labour leader announced on Monday that he would be tabling a censure motion against Theresa May after she refused to give MPs a vote on her Brexit deal this week.

In her latest Brexit statement, May confirmed to the House of Commons that the meaningful vote is scheduled to take place on the week of the 14th January. That means MPs won’t get a say on the Tory Brexit deal until mid-January despite Labour’s calls for a vote to be held urgently before Christmas recess.

Labour’s motion of no confidence read: “That this House has no confidence in the Prime Minister due to her failure to allow the House of Commons to have a meaningful vote straight away on the withdrawal agreement and framework for the future relationship between the UK and the EU.”

The government would have to allow parliamentary time for Corbyn’s censure motion to be put to vote, which it has declined to do. Last night, a Labour spokesperson said it showed May “does not believe she retains the confidence of this House”.

It is unacceptable for the country to wait another month before Parliament has the chance to vote on Theresa May’s botched deal.

To table a motion of no confidence or not to table one, that is the question for Labour right now. This dominated chat in the lobby yesterday, as the answer changed from moment to moment. I wrote up a more detailed account of what happened in the afternoon, which you can read here, but I’ll try to summarise. First, Labour briefed that Jeremy Corbyn would announce in his response to Theresa May’s Brexit statement that unless she confirmed the date of the delayed meaningful vote, he would table a motion of no confidence in her as Prime Minister. This is simply a censure motion, which aims to embarrass.

Then May delivered her statement and revealed that the vote will take place on the week commencing 14th January. This is basically the same as saying before the 21st, which she had already promised, but Corbyn took this as a date confirmation and withdrew his threat. Confusion arose. Didn’t the Labour leader receive an advanced copy of her statement, with a date included? He did, though apparently the leader’s office had already briefed the decision to the press by that point. Anyway, Labour claimed victory in forcing the date reveal. Later, when most of us in the lobby had left the press gallery, Corbyn changed his mind and told the Speaker he’d be tabling a confidence motion. May immediately walked out the chamber – not a good look.

However, there are no ‘opposition days’ (when Labour sets the agenda) in the Commons this week. The PM would therefore have to allow parliamentary time for the motion. A Labour spokesperson said last night: “If she refuses, it is clear that she does not believe she retains the confidence of this House.” Indeed, the government has rebuffed the request, but No10 instead challenged Labour to lay down a meaningful confidence vote – i.e. one in the government, which could lead to a general election under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, rather than in the Prime Minister. It’s now a (small) battle of spin: Labour says May is running scared; the Tories say Corbyn knows he’d lose. Both are probably right (and Labour accepts the latter).

The DUP and the ERG confirmed they wouldn’t support Labour’s motion yesterday, and it looks like none of them would chance sparking an election by backing Labour in a VONC in the government. Ultimately, Labour’s problem is that the DUP MPs are furious about the backstop and eager to vote down May’s deal, but say they won’t pull support from the government unless the deal passes. The DUP plans to keep applying pressure while risking ‘no deal’. Plus, Downing Street thinks Tory Brexiteers are warming slightly to the deal (see Jacob Rees-Mogg’s bizzare U-turn) and will thaw over Christmas too. At cabinet this morning, the PM expects to get approval for ramping up ‘no deal’ preparations. Funnily enough, if May’s ‘no deal’ threats work and the deal passes, that could be Labour’s best chance of getting into power.

This afternoon, Labour briefed to journalists that the party would table a motion of censure against the Prime Minister if she did not confirm the date of the meaningful vote on her Brexit deal. It was duly reported in the lead-up to Theresa May’s latest Brexit statement that Jeremy Corbyn would threaten a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister in his response.

Corbyn was expected to say: “If the Prime Minister does not announce the date for the final vote immediately and with the vote taken promptly, I will table a motion; That this House has no confidence in the Prime Minister due to her failure to allow the House of Commons to have a meaningful vote straight away on the withdrawal agreement and framework for the future relationship between the UK and the EU.” (This is not the same as, and does not hold equal weight to, a motion of no confidence in the government, which could actually topple May. It only tests the waters and serves to embarrass.)

But the Labour leader shelved the warning because May did include a date in her statement, confirming that the vote would be held the week commencing 14th January. Corbyn’s threat withdrawal confused and irritated lobby hacks, who had already written up the news story. But putting aside the fact that ‘week commencing the 14th’ is hardly different to the already-promised deadline of ‘before the 21st’, there is a simple explanation for the shifting sands.

Although the opposition leader receives an advanced copy of the Prime Minister’s statement, this was only offered 30 minutes beforehand (at 3pm, ahead of the statement being delivered at 3.30pm). The copy included May’s date ‘reveal’, but the Labour leader’s office had already briefed the decision to announce a no-confidence vote in the PM to the press by that point.

Did Labour force the government to bring her deal to parliament, as it has now claimed? Well, No10 says May was “always going to” mention the date in her statement. And, as noted above, the mid-January date had already been reported by various outlets, not to mention basically confirmed with a self-imposed 21st January deadline. In any case, Labour hopes it has successfully communicated to the public that it is exerting pressure on the government.

A fresh EU referendum would cause “irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics”, Theresa May will tell MPs today. The public vote would likely not help make progress, further divide the country and “say to millions who trusted in democracy that our democracy does not deliver”. This is the main message the Prime Minister is expected to send (and the one No10 wants everyone to take away, seeing as it was pre-released) when she faces the Commons this afternoon after failing to secure any “reassurances” from the EU last week.

Apart from the fact that May really, really doesn’t like the idea of another referendum, which I think is a genuine objection of hers as well as deriving from a stubborn commitment to her failure of a deal, what can we learn from this? First, the Prime Minister wants to distract MPs from her EU trip flop, and will probably therefore engage in the debate beyond “please refer to my previous answer on that question”. Second, the ‘people’s vote’ campaign is being taken seriously, and we basically have confirmation from the PM herself that cabinet ministers have been pushing the idea of allowing “indicative votes” on all options including a fresh public vote.

Lastly, concerns about the reliability of her word aside, this means May might refuse to lead the country into another vote. She wants getting Brexit done to be her legacy, and she is famed for her dogged determination (often mistakenly interpreted as acting in the national interest) – but her opposition to this path is such that if parliament forced her hand, a resignation could be on the cards.

The likelihood of another referendum increases daily. This is incredibly awkward for Labour, spelling trouble for its precarious electoral coalition of Leavers and Remainers. The party could go down the route of 1975, when it suspended cabinet collective responsibility and let everyone go their own way – but what would Jeremy Corbyn campaign for? Not May’s deal, nor ‘no deal’. His first preference is his own alternative Brexit plan, and that can’t be on the ballot paper because it doesn’t exist. It’s difficult to grasp the absurdity of the situation we’re looking at, in which both main party leaders head up campaigns that they have fought for months to avoid.

As we saw on the Sunday shows, views across the party are as varied as they could be. While Andrew Gwynne told Andrew Marr that a motion of no-confidence wouldn’t be tabled by Labour until after the deal is voted down, Chuka Umunna – who wants to move on to the “other options on the table” as soon as possible – was there to sell the ‘people’s vote’. Sky’s Ridge on Sunday saw frontbencher Rebecca Long-Bailey deliver the leadership’s line (a no-confidence vote should only take place when it can win; Brexit should happen), before Kate Hoey played down the dangers of ‘no deal’ and said the UK shouldn’t pay the £39bn divorce bill. As the famous Brexit composite motion promised, all options are on the table.

TUV leader Jim Allister has warned that the Backstop must be defeated not only because of what he terms it’s “toxic” content, but because, if it ever comes into effect, anything that is allowed by the EU to replace it will be formed in the same “destructive image”.

In a statement Jim Allister said:-

“It is not just that the Backstop itself is toxic, but, because it can only be replaced at the EU’s pleasure, its tenets and principles will inevitably become the template for any replacement, guaranteeing that any replacement would be equally destructive of Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom.

“Hence, the necessity of ensuring the Backstop is stillborn. Otherwise, we will be saddled with the annexation of Northern Ireland as a EU territory in perpetuity.

“Once the EU is given a veto on our escape from the Backstop it is self evident nothing less pernicious will ever be permitted by Brussels, or Dublin. So, it is no exaggeration to say that the survival of Northern Ireland, as an integral part of the UK and its economy, is now dependent on rejection of the Backstop. It is as simple as that. This, I believe, is the reality that most unionists get.”

Andrew Gwynne confirmed reports that Labour will be ‘throwing the kitchen sink’ at the government before Christmas recess with urgent questions and debates in parliament, in an effort to force May to bring her deal to the Commons. Labour’s local government spokesman also revealed that a motion of no confidence in the government would only be tabled once May’s deal is put to parliament.

On the next week in parliament: “We will be using whatever mechanisms we have at our disposal next to week to try and force the government to bring forward that deal for a vote before Christmas.”

On a motion of no confidence: “We want to do that when we can succeed, and the first step is to get this deal decided on by the House of Commons. Until the Commons has had its view on Theresa May’s deal, she’s going to limp on, pretending that this can get through.”

Chuka Umunna, a prominent ‘people’s vote’ campaigner, admitted that not enough MPs back a fresh referendum, but said they would change their positions in due course. The backbench Labour MP warned the Prime Minister was “leaving our country in limbo” by deferring the vote on her Brexit deal, but also disagreed with Labour’s line that a better deal could be negotiated.

On a fresh referendum: “I’m honest enough to say, look, do we have the numbers for a people’s vote on this Brexit mess right now in the House of Commons? No, we don’t.”

On May’s deal being voted on by MPs in mid-January: “That is unacceptable.”

Theresa May’s visit to Brussels has actually made her deal less likely to pass, if that is even possible. The Prime Minister last night sought “reassurances” from the 27 EU leaders with an impassioned plea for help on the backstop, but Jean-Claude Juncker has described the UK’s position as “nebulous” and “imprecise”. Extraordinarily, it seems May is still asking the EU for suggestions rather than laying down her own concrete proposals.

European complaints of May’s ambiguity and imprecision sound remarkably similar to the criticisms levelled by her own backbenchers, who incidentally are more deeply divided than ever. In what will be music to the ears of many Remainer Labour MPs, The Timesreports that Philip Hammond wants the Commons to be given free rein with votes on all possible options, including another referendum, while hard Brexiteers are threatening to go “on strike” next week, à la DUP.

The irony of the whole situation is that the chances of both no deal and another referendum are increasing every day, despite neither main leader wanting either of those outcomes. It has now been confirmed that there will be no meaningful vote before Christmas. By running down the Brexit clock, May is trying to bounce MPs into voting for the deal. But this strategy won’t work because at the same time, the EU (and many MPs) are trying to bounce her into extending or revoking Article 50. The PM continues to deny that is an option, but we all know her word is meaningless and no-deal preparations have been insufficient. Rightly or wrongly, parliament doesn’t believe the threat of no deal and is ready to call her bluff.

The Labour leadership continues to assess when would be the optimal time to table a vote of no confidence in the government. MPs who paused their VONC demands during the Tory leadership vote have now resumed pressure, and it looks like Keir Starmer’s team is pushing for it to be held before Christmas. But Jeremy Corbyn wants to strike when there’s a real chance of securing a win.

Some hope that when May updates MPs on Monday with nothing good to report from her EU excursions, the DUP and/or hardline Tories will have finally had enough and indicate a willingness to either abstain or even vote against the government. In the meantime, the run-up to recess will see Labour make life impossible for the government by taking advantage of Speaker Bercow’s disposition to granting urgent questions and debates. How much longer can May hold office without power?

“There can be no pretence that “assurances” or “understandings” – no matter how they are packaged – will change one iota of the legal text of the draft Brexit deal, nor alter its interpretation.

“I hear talk of ‘protocols’ or ‘codicils’, but given the treaty with the EU is not yet ratified by either side it has not yet attained the status whereby a protocol would be the appropriate or necessary mechanism to perfect change. If legal change is intended, then, simply amend the text. Talk of a separate protocol at this stage therefore makes me suspicious that it is intended to have some lesser legal status (whatever it is called), otherwise you’d just change the text. Patently, clarifications, letters of explanation or political assurances have no legal status or effect.

“So, I caution those who have stood firm so far not to be hoodwinked by any slight of hand or subtlety of language. Hold firm to the insistence that the Backstop must go. It can never be justified because it was constructed on the false premise that it wasnecessary to avoid something that no one was ever going to build, namely ‘a hard border’. The ease with which the Government fell for this hoax is one of the most spectacular failures of Mrs May’s handling of the negotiations.

Soft-left activist group Open Labour has today joined calls for the Labour Party to hold an emergency conference on Brexit, adding to the voice of TSSA chief Manuel Cortes who made the demand last month.

The grassroots organisation hopes such a move would clarify and update Labour’s Brexit policy ahead of an ever more likely snap general election. It expects that conference would opt to support continued membership of the EU while advocating reform.

Leeds North West MP and Open Labour committee member Alex Sobel said: “Our internal democracy is the most vital part of our party decision-making process. When facts change, it’s important to go back to our sovereign policy-making body, Labour Party conference, to make the decisions.

“With 29th March 2019 rapidly approaching, it’s important that our members have the final say in what our position should be before a general election. We all understand that our leadership is managing a very difficult balancing act well.

“I hope that they will see our members as vital in getting our party to stand united at this time of crisis and get the best resolution for our party, the communities we represent and everyone in this country, whether they voted leave or remain.’

The idea of a special conference, which has quickly gained traction amongst pro-EU activists in the party over the last few weeks, is inspired by the events of 1975. Under Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson, the party held a one-day conference to resolve its deep divisions over Brexit and debate Britain’s membership of the European Economic Community.

Led by cabinet ministers Tony Benn and Michael Foot, the anti-Common Market faction won the vote by almost 2-1, as only seven of the 46 trade unions at the conference supported EC membership. Although Wilson was pro-EC, the conference result meant Labour as a whole remained neutral and collective responsibility was suspended.

Writing for LabourList last week, Corbynite trade union general secretary Cortes argued that Labour should push for a fresh referendum and “campaign for Jeremy’s Remain and reform vision”. He said, in a piece for Huffington Post in November, that this would require the party to convene a special conference as soon as May’s deal was defeated.

Commenting on Open Labour’s announcement, co-chair Emma Burnell said: “The government is in chaos and is headed towards a hard, devastating Brexit. Now is the time for the Labour leadership, MPs, trade unions and Labour Party members to step up and show the leadership this country needs and offer the country a way out of the appalling mess the Tories have left us in.”

Theresa May survived last night’s ballot on her party leadership by 200 votes to 117, with over a third of her MPs electing to end her reign. The result of the secret ballot was announced in a room filled with lobby journalists, plus a few MPs, on committee room corridor in parliament at exactly 9pm. As Sir Graham Brady (currently 1922 Committee chair, though that could be coming to an end) read out the voting figures, loyalists clapped and cheered, but their celebrations were short-sighted.

The number of 117 was higher than expected, with most having predicted around 80-100, and indicates that the internal opposition against May goes beyond the core group of hard Brexiteers in her party. Although the Prime Minister is now safe under party rules from another such challenge until 12th December 2019, several promises she can’t keep were made to ensure her survival and the level of Tory infighting has been ramped up rather than quelled.

May is off to Brussels today to get a legally binding assurance on the Irish backstop, but her deal is still dead on arrival and the Conservative Party continues to tear itself apart. Yesterday, Andrew Bridgen actually left a live BBC interview because he couldn’t bear to stand next to his Tory colleague James Cleverly. But it’s not just Bridgen: the noises coming from Tory Remainers sound apocalyptic for the party too. Anna Soubry says she’s embarrassed to be a Conservative MP, and Nicky Morgan predicted a formal split this morning: “I think there’s an inevitability that some of these people – the hardest Brexiteers – are going to walk.”

Labour’s take on the no-confidence vote drama is that it doesn’t matter. That was clear in PMQs yesterday, when Jeremy Corbyn neglected to mention the ballot until the end of the session. ‘What is Corbyn doing?’ the commentariat tweeted. ‘Hasn’t he seen the news?’ But this was the right call: Corbyn knew May would probably survive, and it could have given her the chance to remind him of his own no-confidence vote by the PLP. Most importantly, the Labour leader is bang on to say the vote is “utterly irrelevant to the lives of people across our country”. Life expectancy is falling for the poorest, Universal Credit has not been radically changed as required, and the largest government departments are not fit for purpose.

Crucially, the ruling party does not have a working majority to get legislation through parliament and May’s deal still cannot pass. Corbyn is calling on May to “bring her botched deal back to parliament next week”, but this seems unlikely. The stubborn PM is running down the Brexit clock and flirting with no-deal by doing so. The only question that matters is whether the DUP, or even Jacob Rees-Mogg’s ERG, are willing to pull the plug and help Labour bring down the government.

Wednesday 12 December 2018Clare Bailey MLA said that the outcome of the confidence motion in Theresa May as Conservative Party leader will not negate the necessity of a People’s Vote.

The leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland commented: “Westminster is in chaos, the government is divided.“Mrs May promised “strong and stable” government but now presides over an administration in meltdown“Irrespective of whether Mrs May holds onto power this evening or succumbs to internal Tory attack, Westminster will remain deadlocked.“A democratic solution is possible. A People’s Vote is needed now more than ever.”ENDSMedia Contact: Sinead McIvor – 07701 302 498Tags: Brexit, People’s Vote, Westminsterby Clare Bailey MLA, Clare Bailey

Another quiet day in Westminster. This morning, it was confirmed that 48 Tory MPs have sent letters of no confidence in Theresa May and a vote on her leadership will take place tonight. I said in yesterday’s morning email: “She has delayed the meaningful vote to delay a leadership election, but that contest may be on its way regardless.” The loss of goodwill and trust caused by that deferral, plus the feeble promises of EU “reassurances”, indeed became the last straw and the threshold was reached. Speaking outside No10 today, the Prime Minister said she will contest the vote “with everything I’ve got”, so the battle for the future of Brexit is on.

To quickly run through the process: between 6pm and 8pm tonight, in Committee Room 14 (with the entire lobby waiting outside), the Conservative parliamentary party will vote on whether to keep its leader. If a simple majority of MPs oppose May’s leadership, she cannot stand in the election that follows. If less than half vote against her, May stays and Tory MPs cannot trigger another contest for 12 months.

Cabinet ministers (and potential future candidates, because “he who wields the knife never wears the crown”) have quickly taken to the airwaves to express their support, but this is a secret ballot. The consensus forming is that she’ll win nonetheless – the speed of the vote is in her favour, and she has a few scare tactics, including her warning that a successor would have to “delay or even stop Brexit”. If the winning majority is very slim, we don’t know whether May would opt to limp along, ‘tis but a scratch’-style, or choose to stand down. ConservativeHomecites precedent (i.e. Thatcher/Heseltine in 1990) to predict that she would have to resign, but a lack of authority hasn’t stopped May clinging on to power so far.

What does this mean for Labour? Well, the leadership is feeling pretty pleased with its decision not to call a vote of no confidence in the government. The pressure applied by Labour MPs and other opposition parties to do just that was immense yesterday, but the leader’s office held its nerve. And by holding off, Jeremy Corbyn let the Tories tear themselves apart. As Barry Gardiner said on Radio 4’s Today: “Had we done it yesterday, we would have galvanised more people to support the Prime Minister.”

Whatever the outcome of the vote tonight, the optics for the governing party are terrible. Commenting on the news, party chair Ian Lavery said: “The Conservative party’s internal divisions are putting people’s jobs and living standards at risk.” Their behaviour taps into the impression many voters have that politicians are squabbling amongst themselves in their Westminster bubble, not addressing the real issues being faced by ordinary people on a day-to-day basis. That point will no doubt be rammed home at PMQs, which is essential viewing today.

Over 200 elected Labour officials have written an open letter to Jeremy Corbyn calling on him to support a ‘people’s vote’.

Organised by the pressure group Labour for a People’s Vote, hundreds of Labour representatives – including councillors and assembly members – have told the Labour leader that a fresh EU referendum is “absolutely necessary”, if not “risk-free”.

“An extension of Article 50 can be secured and Labour should ensure May’s deal can only be implemented if supported during a new referendum. The alternative option in that referendum should be for Britain to stay in the EU,” the letter reads.

Signatories include council leaders Lib Peck, Debbie Wilcox and Steve Cowan; Fleur Anderson, recently selected as the next parliamentary candidate in Putney; London assembly member Tom Copley; and directly-elected mayor Phil Glanville.

Mike Buckley, director of Labour for a People’s Vote, commented: “Labour councillors listen to their constituents every day and hear their concerns about how Brexit could affect their lives. They know that people are worried about their jobs, local public services and their children’s futures if Brexit goes ahead.

“Their call today for a public vote on the Brexit deal shows that this is an issue of national concern, and one that can only be dealt with by a national public vote on the government deal against our current deal as members of the EU. Only the Labour Party is in a position to make the case for this vote in parliament, and to win it in the country. It’s time that we took the initiative and led the call for a People’s Vote.”

Below is the full text of the open letter.

Dear Jeremy,

As local councillors we wish to add our names to the growing number of Labour party members supporting a People’s Vote.

Local government has borne the brunt of Tory spending cuts since 2010. Without question, voters’ anger at years of austerity played a part in the victory of the Leave campaign in 2016. Yet a dire situation has been made even worse by the Brexit vote. Businesses have delayed investment decisions and relocated staff overseas. High inflation has further impoverished millions already struggling to make ends meet. Most galling of all, Brexit has consumed government attention at a time when reforms and funding are urgently needed to restore a crumbling public realm.

Theresa May’s deal bears almost no resemblance to the version of Brexit voters were sold during the 2016 referendum campaign. Far from allowing the British people to “take back control”, it hands greater control to the European Union. We applaud Labour MPs preparing to vote down the deal in parliament and welcome your clear leadership in this regard.

If May’s deal is defeated, what comes next? To be sure, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal in place, austerity will continue – extending and worsening the misery excessive spending cuts have inflicted on millions of people. It is the height of irresponsibility to point to the upsides of a no-deal Brexit. They do not exist. Labour must kill the notion that an economic downturn is a price worth paying to restore an ill-defined concept of “sovereignty” at an unspecified future time.

The deal before parliament is far worse than the deal we currently enjoy inside the EU. It satisfies no one. And the alternative of a no-deal Brexit is such a grotesque proposition it must be ruled out. At the same time, EU negotiators have made it clear that renegotiating a new bespoke deal is out of the question. A general election is needed, to restore our public realm and address the structural inequalities in our economy. But there is no hope of achieving these aims if Brexit consumes as much political attention in the coming years as it has done since 2016.

A new referendum is not a risk-free option, but it is absolutely necessary. An extension of Article 50 can be secured and Labour should ensure May’s deal can only be implemented if supported during a new referendum. The alternative option in that referendum should be for Britain to stay in the EU.

We therefore call on the Labour party to formally support a People’s Vote, including the option for the UK to remain full EU members. It is the only way out of the Brexit impasse and the best way to open up the political space for Labour to bring about the transformative reforms our country so desperately needs.

This is the big day – oh, wait, no it isn’t. After repeatedly insisting she definitely wouldn’t delay the meaningful vote, Theresa May pulled the meaningful vote scheduled to take place today. Having admitted that her deal would have been heavily defeated in parliament, and realised she is not willing to run the risk of being toppled following such a decisive vote, the Prime Minister is now rushing around the continent to seek “reassurances” from EU leaders.

We saw dramatic scenes in parliament yesterday, and it’s easy to forget that what we were watching in the chamber was extraordinary. May succeeded in avoiding a vote on the decision to delay the meaningful vote (she would’ve lost that too), but her tricksiness came at the expense of any trust she had left amongst MPs. The Speaker called the move “deeply discourteous”, the opposition was rightly appalled and Tory MPs were absolutely furious with their own leader – some even later stood to back Labour’s call for an emergency debate. (This was, of course, granted by Bercow and will take place today.) Nobody outdid Labour’s Lloyd Russell-Moyle, though, who grabbed the mace in protest and had to be ordered out of the chamber. Absolute scenes.

The volume of intra-Labour arguments over Brexit have now been turned up a notch. This was always going to happen after the vote, but it is now oddly happening in a sort of limbo. The main row is over Jeremy Corbyn’s timing of a no-confidence vote: other opposition parties, particularly the SNP, have called on him to table the motion immediately, but the Labour leadership wants to bide its time (as forecast in yesterday’s morning email). Labour MPs supportive of a fresh referendum are also applying pressure. A letter organised by Ian Murray, signed by over 50 Labour MPs, MEPs and peers, makes no secret of their strategy: they know a no-confidence motion in the government wouldn’t pass now, however they also think this is the best way of moving Labour on to the “other options” on that fabled composite motion table. The other option in mind being a ‘people’s vote’.

The Labour leader’s office is clear that the party won’t be tabling the motion until after the deal is voted on. They argue that not only would it be lost, the move could actually unite Tories and encourage them to rally behind the PM. The difficulty is that we still don’t know when the meaningful will be held. Some Remainers worry that if May defers it until after Christmas, Corbyn will be helping her to run the clock down, such that her bad deal and no deal are the only choices left. The internal Labour disagreement comes back to the priorities of respective Brexit tribes: Corbyn foremostly wants a general election, followed by a renegotiation, whereas pro-PV backbench (largely Corbynsceptic) MPs want to stop Brexit altogether via another public vote or simply revoking Article 50.

One thing is certain: the “reassurances” that May brings back won’t be enough to satisfy the DUP, Labour or the hard Brexiteers in her party. Any remaining goodwill has been lost, the PM has said reopening the withdrawal agreement is too risky and the EU won’t be U-turning on the backstop. She has delayed the vote to delay a leadership election, but that contest may be on its way regardless.

In a clear example of why Labour wanted to keep John Bercow in his place despite bullying allegations, the Speaker put on show his interventionist style again by warning that it would be “discourteous” for the government not to put the delay itself to a vote. He explained that there are two ways to pull the vote. The first, “preferable” option, would be for a minister to move that the debate be adjourned, which entails a vote. The second option is for the government to decline to move today’s business.

“Allowing the house to have its say would be the right and obvious course to take,” Bercow said. But the government has other plans. The Prime Minister’s spokesman explained that the clerk will read the orders of the day, then the Tory whip will say “tomorrow” (which doesn’t mean the debate will actually continue tomorrow). No vote is then required.

2. We still don’t know when the deal will be put to a vote in the Commons…

May refused to say when the meaningful vote, no longer being held on Tuesday, will instead take place. She did repeatedly say she was “deferring” the vote, which would imply a meaningful vote will occur at some point, and her spokesman confirmed this could be described as a “cast iron guarantee”.

The question is before or after Christmas. As the government’s strategy is presumably to apply as much pressure as possible to MPs with the looming threat of a ‘no deal’ exit, it would make sense to hold the vote later than sooner. And it’s unlikely that anyone will want to cancel or shorten Christmas recess, which runs from 20th December to 7th January.

3. …but it could be as late as 28th March.

On multiple occasions speaking in the chamber, May cited her deadline for coming back to the Commons with a deal as 21st January. But it seems she doesn’t know the details of her own legislation. According to the House of Commons, which hosted a helpful #AskTheCommons Q&A session on Twitter this afternoon, the latest date for the government to ratify a deal would be 28th March.

It would appear that Theresa May has got the details of her deadline wrong, and could put her deal to a vote even closer to the exit date. What we do know is that the government continues to insist it will not extend Article 50, despite the European Court of Justice ruling today that it can be unilaterally revoked.

In practice the latest date would be 28 March as matters stand. (2/2) #askthecommons

May’s statement more or less confirmed that she would only be seeking “reassurances” from EU leaders, which likely means changes to the wording of the political declaration (the document describing the UK-EU future relationship). To reopen the withdrawal agreement would be too risky as “fishing would come back into play”, her spokesman said. Borrowing from Jeremy Corbyn’s table-themed trick, the PM said “nothing is off the table”, but this seems only to be an attempt to keep Tory MPs hopeful.

5. Labour will not back the deal if only cosmetic changes are made.

In his response to the statement, Corbyn told MPs that the House of Commons “must debate the negotiating mandate” if Theresa May plans to go back to Brussels. The Labour leader also made clear that his party would not support a deal if only small changes were made to the political declaration. There is “no point” in May “bringing back the same botched deal”, either next week or in January, he said.

Without official Labour backing, Theresa May will have to rely on Labour MPs being fearful enough of a ‘no deal’ Brexit that they would rebel and vote for her deal. But unless the level of Tory opposition significantly reduces, there doesn’t appear to be enough Caroline Flints in the PLP to make this strategy work.

Bonus:

If you were wondering whether Labour will now be tabling a motion of no confidence in the government, that looks unlikely – despite more and more Labour MPs demanding it. A party spokesperson has said the motion will be put down “when we judge it most likely to be successful”, and a well-placed source tells LabourList the leader’s office doesn’t think it wise to pull that card before the deal has been defeated.

“Mrs May’s humiliating climb down highlights her folly in trying to push ahead with a deal that will never fly in Parliament. But, clearly, she has learned nothing because all she is now talking about is “assurances”, which will be meaningless in comparison to the legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement which she is not seeking to change. So without changes in the legal text any assurances would be whitewash that should fool no one.

“In peddling again the nonsense that we must have the Backstop because of the Belfast Agreement, Mrs May is being disingenuous. The Belfast Agreement does not require NI to be in the EU Customs Union: the Backstop does. The Belfast Agreement does not require a border down the Irish Sea: the Backstop does. The Belfast Agreement does not prohibit border infrastructure, but who would build this infrastructure, which is emotively called ‘a hard border’? Dublin says it won’t. The UK says it won’t. So, why is she insisting on a destructive Backstop on this false premise?

“This is a Prime Minister who has utterly lost her way. She should go and go now.”

“The four Remain parties, Sinn Féin, SDLP, Alliance and Green Party continue to believe that there is no such thing as a good Brexit and our preference is for no Brexit at all. We recognise that the majority of people, businesses and civic society do not want Brexit either.“We have a shared responsibility to protect jobs, economic stability, the environment and people’s livelihoods.“At the very least, this means avoiding a hard border, protecting the Good Friday Agreement and hard won peace of the past twenty years, and staying within the Single Market and a Customs Union.“Therefore as a basis for this, we maintain that there is a pressing need for the backstop as set out in the Withdrawal Agreement to be banked.“By contrast, we believe that a no deal situation would be catastrophic for our economy and society.”ENDSSigned by:Michelle O’NeillColum EastwoodNaomi LongClare BaileyTags: Backstop, Brexit, Withdrawal agreementby Clare Bailey, Colm Eastwood, Michelle O’Neill, Naomi Long

Faced with a huge historic defeat in the Commons, it would seem Theresa May has opted to pull the meaningful vote on her Brexit deal. It was due to take place tomorrow, but reportedly the Prime Minister told cabinet in an emergency conference call that the vote is off. It is now confirmed that she will be making a statement in the chamber called ‘Exiting the European Union’, followed by a business statement from Andrea Leadsom. These constitute a sure sign that it will be announced the vote is delayed.

What does this mean for her deal and for Labour? First, it’s important to note that she has irritated both MPs and journalists with the way in which this decision was made. In the days and weeks preceding the vote, the PM, her spokespeople and multiple cabinet members had insisted the vote would go ahead despite an anticipated heavy loss for the government. At 11.15am today, Downing Street confirmed this to lobby reporters. Only minutes later, it became clear this was not the case. At a time when the government cannot afford to undermine its credibility and trustworthiness with either politicians or news publications, mishandling this move is particularly unwise.

The consequences of the decision to attempt pulling the vote depend on whether the EU agrees to renegotiate the deal or only make ‘cosmetic’ changes to the political declaration document. You would think May would only pull the vote if she had secured promises that substantial changes to the agreement could be made. Without a significant u-turn on the backstop, which is hugely improbable, it seems unlikely that the government will be able to win a programme motion that would alter the timetable for the meaningful vote.

If May does manage to drastically alter to the timetable and avoid holding the vote on Tuesday, Labour could opt to table a motion of no confidence in the government. More and more Labour MPs are calling on the leadership to do just that. But senior party figures privately admit that it is highly implausible such a motion would be passed by MPs, as it would require the support of the DUP. Although the confidence-and-supply partner hasn’t been supplying much confidence recently, Arlene Foster has said it would only consider bringing down the government by officially ripping up their agreement if the deal passed. Instead, Labour could table a censure motion against the PM, which is more likely to get cross-party approval, just as its efforts led to the government being found in contempt of parliament last week. This wouldn’t lead to resignations by default, but apply further pressure.

Jeremy Corbyn has responded to reports the vote has been pulled, commenting: “The government has decided Theresa May’s Brexit deal is so disastrous that it has taken the desperate step of delaying its own vote at the eleventh hour.

“We have known for at least two weeks that Theresa May’s worst of all worlds deal was going to be rejected by parliament because it is damaging for Britain. Instead, she ploughed ahead when she should have gone back to Brussels to renegotiate or called an election so the public could elect a new government that could do so.

“We don’t have a functioning government. While Theresa May continues to botch Brexit, our public services are at breaking point and our communities suffer from dire under-investment. Labour’s alternative plan for a jobs first deal must take centre stage in any future talks with Brussels.”

This morning it was confirmed by the European Court of Justice that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50, remaining an EU member state “under terms that are unchanged”. Basically, it’s been made easier to stop Brexit. This will particularly buoy up ‘people’s vote’ campaigners, who see one less obstacle another referendum would have to face.

Whether the ECJ ruling affects Labour’s Brexit position divides opinion in the party, as you would expect. This was evident on Radio 4’s Today, when frontbencher Shami Chakrabarti said the result was predictable and did not change the political situation, but backbencher Margaret Beckett argued that it changed the “mood” of the country and MPs.

The big question of the weekend has been over whether Theresa May will pull the vote on Tuesday, as most expect her deal to be rejected by more than 100 votes. That scale of defeat would be historic. But the Brexit Secretary and other government spokespersons insisted yesterday that it would go ahead anyway. There is also much uncertainty around how that would be done, as it could require a minister to filibuster or make another move that would probably anger MPs.

So despite the heavy defeat anticipated by the Prime Minister, it looks for now as if it is going ahead as planned. The hope for No10 is that May will survive long enough to secure changes to the political declaration and ultimately drive the deal through parliament. The risk is that, immediately after the vote, Labour will throw things into chaos with a no-confidence vote in the government (though it’s likely to be lost, and looks as if Jeremy Corbyn plans to bide his time) or Tory MPs will trigger a leadership election.

In the midst of all this, has Labour shifted on Brexit? Every day, something said by Corbyn or John McDonnell is taken as an indication that the party is bending towards or away from another referendum. It happened again on Sunday, when Rosena Allin-Khan announced her support for a fresh public vote at the People’s Vote rally. The MP said she was convinced by her “Tooting Brexit poll”, which showed 90% of the 2,793 local residents who took part wanted a say. But she’s a shadow minister. (There are now three shadow ministers publicly backing PV: Steve Reed, another London MP, plus Roberta Blackman-Woods.)

Asked by Robert Peston whether Allin-Khan could stay on the frontbench, Corbyn replied: “I’ll have a discussion with her.” She won’t be asked to stand down, yet the Labour leader’s tone shows he remains unimpressed by the ‘people’s vote’ idea. It is clear that the Labour leadership still prioritises a general election and, crucially, a renegotiation, over another referendum. Those who think a referendum is current Labour policy – and I’m told there are members who do believe that – might want to keep that in mind.

In an interview with ITV’s Robert Peston, Jeremy Corbyn talked about Theresa May’s Brexit deal, another referendum and a vote of no confidence. Here are the highlights.

1. On when Labour will call a no-confidence vote in the government…

Under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, an early election can only be held:

if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House or without division; or

if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.

Labour is expected to attempt a vote of no confidence in the government after Theresa May’s deal is voted down. But there is debate over whether the opposition party should wait until the Tories trigger their own vote of no confidence in May as a leader.

Corbyn did not confirm when it would take place, telling Peston: “I want this deal defeated, and that is our priority… We will then take our tactical decisions after that.”

He concluded: “We’ll decide on Tuesday.”

2. On the “options remaining on the table”…

Labour’s Brexit composite motion agreed at conference says the party will “support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote” should it not be able to secure a general election.

Pressed on what the options on the table – other than another referendum – would be, Corbyn said: “The other options are, do you force some new negotiations, do you force new demands on the government.”

The Labour leader went on to point out that another referendum would likely take months to get through parliament.

3. On putting a ‘remain’ option on the ballot paper in a fresh EU referendum…

When Peston asked the Labour leader about whether his pledge to respect the result of the 2016 referendum affected calling for another public vote, he said a “re-run” would be “met with dismay by a lot of people”.

Corbyn added: “There has to be an option there of what’s on offer. We still don’t know what would be on offer. At the moment we’ve got this deal, which doesn’t look as though it’s going to get through parliament. Or some other subsequent offer that comes from the EU commission next weekend.”

4. On a shadow minister backing the ‘people’s vote’ campaign…

Peston pointed out that shadow sports minister Rosena Allin-Khan, who represents a heavily Remain seat in London, today backed the campaign for another referendum with a speech at the People’s Vote rally.

On whether this was consistent with Labour’s policy, Corbyn said: “Look, she’s entitled to her point of view. I’d rather she and every other Labour MP spent today, tomorrow and Tuesday concentrated solely on making sure we defeat this deal.”

Asked whether Allin-Khan could stay on Labour’s frontbench, Corbyn replied: “I’ll have a discussion with her.”

The general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Frances O’Grady, sent members of parliament a letter, explaining why the unions will not be supporting the final Brexit deal and why they shouldn’t either.

In the letter, O’Grady notes that “after the transition, there is nothing to stop UK workers’ rights failing far behind the rest of Europe.”

Later the TUC leader added: The only employment rights commitments covering our future relationship with the EU are in the non-binding draft Political Declaration. In other words, they aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.”

Her letter received widespread support from Labour MPs and grassroots organisations, who shared it widely on social media.

Jeremy Corbyn has laid his cards on the table with a Guardian op-ed, which covers why Labour is opposed to Theresa May’s deal and what its alternative plan would look like. The Labour leader argues that the deal on offer “gives up control” rather than taking it back, and says the party will work with others to ensure it is rejected as well as ‘no-deal’. We know it will be roundly defeated on Tuesday – it’s a certainty unless May pulls the plug on the meaningful vote, which has been rumoured (though apparently she would need MPs’ consent). The question is therefore what Labour is proposing to do next. Are there any clues in the piece?

Corbyn acknowledges that ‘Norway-plus’ is “being canvassed among MPs”, but bats it away, just as ‘people’s vote’ supporter Mike Gapes did on LabourList this week. The best outcome would be a general election, he says, then there’s that well-worn phrase – “all options must be on the table”. He specifies: “Those should include Labour’s alternative and, as our conference decided in September, the option of campaigning for a public vote to break the deadlock.” Paul Mason excitedly tweeted: “Boom! Corbyn commits to second referendum if May blocks general election…” But that interpretation is more than a little generous to his own cause, as the Labour leader has simply reiterated party policy. (And, noticeably, he is still doing so in writing. The frsh public vote idea gets a much frostier airing in interviews.)

Most interesting is that, again, Corbyn places the ‘backstop’ at the centre of his case against May’s deal. The current arrangement does not allow for an independent exit, which would require EU approval, and could “endure indefinitely” as confirmed by the published legal advice. But the EU says there is no deal without a backstop. Wouldn’t Labour’s alternative plan – and let’s remember that a renegotiation is the leadership’s first preference – call for a backstop too? In yesterday’s Brexit debate, focussing on the economy, I was struck by John McDonnell’s responses on this issue. His answers were revealing and suggest this will become a crucial point of contention.

If you were hoping to abandon Doctor Who/I’m A Celebrity/Strictly and instead watch the two main party leaders battle it out live on telly this weekend, I’m going to have to disappoint you. That pre-Brexit vote TV debate everyone was arguing about will not be happening, as May didn’t agree to a head-to-head. “Her team tried to confuse people with a convoluted format,” Labour said last night. Don’t worry: there’s hours of repetitive Commons debates on Brexit from the last few weeks you can watch back.

But before that thrilling boxset binge, you might want to add another event to your Sunday schedule. Dozens of organisations including Momentum and Another Europe is Possible have called a counter-demonstration to Tommy Robinson’s ‘Brexit betrayal’ protest. As discussed last week on LabourList, there has been conflict over the left’s approach, a conversation grounded in whether Brexit appeals to the far-right because it is an inherently racist project (Lexiteers: ‘no!’). London Young Labour’s Artin Giles today writes for LabourList arguing that the left should not allow internal divisions over Brexit to get in the way of “the need to build an anti-fascist majority across the country”. LYL’s message: “Leave or Remain: we all hate Tommy”.

The economy is the subject of the Brexit debate on Day Three. Accordingly, Philip Hammond opened, and his words were entirely predictable. Hemmed in by Treasury forecasts that show any form of Brexit will make the UK worse off than it would be remaining in the EU, Hammond had no choice but to focus on the case for securing a deal in the first place. This is lucky, in a way, as the only thing going for Theresa May’s deal is that it is a deal.

“I do not believe that we can afford the economic cost of a no deal exit. But I equally do not believe that we can afford the political and society cost of trying to undo the decision of the British people in the referendum,” Hammond told MPs. It is key to the matter of Brexit that this argument could just as well have been delivered by Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour leader would also posit that ‘no deal’ is too harmful to jobs but that no Brexit may destroy the little faith in democracy still held by voters in places such as Mansfield and North East Derbyshire, which happen to be key marginal seats for Labour.

John McDonnell kicked off his response by acknowledging the importance of Tuesday’s meaningful vote and quoting Corbynsceptic Labour MP Hilary Benn. “My final plea to the House is as follows: now is the moment to tell each other the truth. No one is going to get everything they thought they would get…. All of us are going to have to compromise.” It struck a conciliatory tone with cross-factional, cross-party appeal – a particularly clever move at a time when MPs and ordinary voters are talking about the benefits of a national unity government. (Not that a Tory leader would countenance the idea, which from their perspective would risk offering credibility and authority to Corbyn.)

The Shadow Chancellor said he would focus on four key points:

Seeking to avoid ‘no deal’, “either by imposition or by default”, which he described as an area of “widespread majoritarian common ground across the House”.

Accepting that the Prime Minister’s deal is “neither politically nor economically acceptable”, and cannot win a majority in the Commons.

Establishing that Labour’s plan could unite the country “by addressing the concerns raised in the referendum campaign while securing the benefits of

Recognising “the expression of a worrying concern, given our economy, of Brexit’s impact on our communities”.

The cross-party appeal soon fell away in favour of a divide and conquer strategy when the Shadow Chancellor aimed fire at the Irish ‘backstop’. This is the reason that the DUP – which is holding the government together – will not vote for the deal currently on offer, and therefore has been highlighted repeatedly by Labour spokespersons at the despatch box. Quite understandably. But many are bemused by the identity of the fierce backstop opponents, especially McDonnell, who only in October said he still “longs for a united Ireland”.

But more pertinent than an apparent U-turn on British unionism is whether Labour’s critique of May’s deal stands up. Corbyn, McDonnell and other frontbenchers have been to point out problems with the backstop – primarily that the UK cannot unilaterally withdraw from it, and it could apply indefinitely, as confirmed by the published legal advice. The assumption is that Labour’s alternative Brexit plan would not require a backstop.

In the debate today, when the DUP’s Ian Paisley asked “if his party would drop the backstop and the Northern Ireland protocol altogether”, McDonnell replied: “We would not need the backstop because we want a permanent customs union and a relationship with the single market.” Certain terms were used. But Tory backbencher Alex Chalk then raised the matter again: “Wouldn’t there still need to be a backstop in any event, as the UK would be outside the single market?” This time, McDonnell replied: “I believeunder a comprehensive customs union agreement, it is so much more unlikely there would be any need for that fallback position.” The second answer was less definite. And it is this matter that would become of crucial importance if Labour got its preferred option of a renegotiated Brexit deal.